Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Subrahmanyam Saderla vs Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay on 14 February, 2023

Bench: Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari

                                                     1

                                                                               CORRECTED
                                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.460/2023
     (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3663/2020)


     SUBRAHMANYAM SADERLA                                               Appellant(s)

                                                   VERSUS


     CHANDRA SHEKHAR UPADHYAY & ORS.                                    Respondent(s)


                                              O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Aerospace at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, U.P. He has been commendably pursuing his academic career and interests, and was awarded a Ph.D. Degree in recognition of his excellence in the field. However, it appears that some unwarranted complaints were made questioning the originality of the Ph.D. thesis submitted by the appellant, pursuant whereof, the Senate Post Graduate Com­ mittee, recommended withdrawal of the Ph.D. thesis and re­evalua­ tion of a revised version of the thesis. The Board of Governors ap­ proved those recommendations. Eventually, the matter was referred to a Committee of Three Technical Experts which vide their Report dated 03­05­2019 concluded that the appellant’s thesis had referred Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND to Date: 2023.02.18 11:38:13 IST Reason: material which was common knowledge in that 2 specific filed of study. However, the Committee advised that a brief corrigendum by the appellant may be appended to the thesis clearly identifying the texts which referred to points that were common knowledge.

3. The appellant – as a true Academician accepted those recommendations and issued a Corrigendum on 31­10­2019. The Board of Governors thereafter accepted the corrigendum submitted by the appellant and it was resolved that his Ph.D. thesis titled “PARAMETER ESTIMATION USING FLIGHT DATA OF UNMANNED FLIGHT VEHICLES AT LOW AND MODERATELY HIGH ANGLES OF ATTACH USING CONVENTIONAL METHODS” be read along with the corrigendum from now on.

4. In this manner, there is no remaining doubt regarding the genuineness of the Ph.D. thesis, and the degree that was awarded to the appellant. His dedication, hard­work and deep research on the subject stands duly recognized.

5. It appears that some of the members of the faculty of IIT, Kanpur, including the four private respondents – herein were allegedly criticizing the originality of the Ph.D. thesis of the appellant, besides purportedly making certain remarks which hurt the sentiments, prestige and dignity of the appellant. This unfortunate episode prompted the appellant to lodge an F.I.R. Case Crime No.1283/2018 under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 3 Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station, Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, U.P.

6. The above­stated First Information Report was assailed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and vide impugned Judgment dated 05­03­2020, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the FIR.

7. As has been noticed at the outset, the appellant’s academic work was under attack at the time and he genuine hurt, which led to the FIR being lodged. Subsequently, the issue has been finally resolved and the appellant’s Ph.D. Degree has been accepted and recognized.

8. The respondents have specifically denied their alleged role, directly or indirectly, in relation to any doubts which may have been created regarding the Ph.D. thesis of the appellant or any type of social humiliation inflicted upon him. The respondents sincerely undertake before this Court that in the future as well, they will never do any such thing, or make any comments, which may hurt the sentiments and feelings of the appellant in any manner.

9. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appellant and the respondents are faculty members in one of the premier institutes in the country. Their day­to­day conduct must be exemplary as the students of the institution follow in their foot steps. There is a 4 solemn responsibility on the respondents as well as the appellant to ensure that none of their actions should downgrade or demean the institution of renowned academicians who still enjoy the highest respect in our society. The attribution of allegations and counter­allegations also, in a way, damages the reputation of individuals as well as the institution. We, therefore, impress upon the appellant as well as the private respondents to ensure that they work together as a team in the best interests of the institution and their students, and do not allow any unfortunate and untoward incidents to occur which might hurt the sentiments, feelings, respect and dignity of each other.

10. Given this hope, we feel that the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an impediment to restoration of normalcy and bringing cordiality back between the appellant and the respondents in their professional and personal capacities.

11. We, therefore, at this stage, are not inclined to continue with these proceedings and deem it appropriate to dispose of the same, with a recommendation to the Chairman of the Board of Governors to invite the appellant and all the four respondents together and ensure that there are no pending misunderstandings or misgivings between them so as to guarantee professionalism and an ideal academic atmosphere in the institution.

12. The appeal is disposed of at this stage in the afore­mentioned terms.

5

13. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

…………………………………J (SURYA KANT) …………………………………………J (J.K. MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI 14TH FEBRUARY, 2023.

6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.460/2023 (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3663/2020) SUBRAHMANYAM SADERLA Appellant(s) VERSUS CHANDRA SHEKHAR UPADHYAY & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.

2. The appellant is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Aerospace at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, U.P. He has been commendably pursuing his academic career and interests, and was awarded a Ph.D. Degree in recognition of his excellence in the field. However, it appears that some unwarranted complaints were made questioning the originality of the Ph.D. thesis submitted by the appellant, pursuant whereof, the Senate Post Graduate Com­ mittee, recommended withdrawal of the Ph.D. thesis and re­evalua­ tion of a revised version of the thesis. The Board of Governors ap­ proved those recommendations. Eventually, the matter was referred to a Committee of Three Technical Experts which vide their Report dated 03­05­2019 concluded that the appellant’s thesis had referred to material which was common knowledge in that 7 specific filed of study. However, the Committee advised that a brief corrigendum by the appellant may be appended to the thesis clearly identifying the texts which referred to points that were common knowledge.

3. The appellant – as a true Academician accepted those recommendations and issued a Corrigendum on 31­10­2019. The Board of Governors thereafter accepted the corrigendum submitted by the appellant and it was resolved that his Ph.D. thesis titled “PARAMETER ESTIMATION USING FLIGHT DATA OF UNMANNED FLIGHT VEHICLES AT LOW AND MODERATELY HIGH ANGLES OF ATTACH USING CONVENTIONAL METHODS” be read along with the corrigendum from now on.

4. In this manner, there is no remaining doubt regarding the genuineness of the Ph.D. thesis, and the degree that was awarded to the appellant. His dedication, hard­work and deep research on the subject stands duly recognized.

5. It appears that some of the members of the faculty of IIT, Kanpur, including the four private respondents – herein were allegedly criticizing the originality of the Ph.D. thesis of the appellant, besides purportedly making certain remarks which hurt the sentiments, prestige and dignity of the appellant. This unfortunate episode prompted the appellant to lodge an F.I.R. Case Crime No.1283/2018 under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 8 Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station, Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, U.P.

6. The above­stated First Information Report was assailed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and vide impugned Judgment dated 05­03­2020, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the FIR.

7. As has been noticed at the outset, the appellant’s academic work was under attack at the time and he genuine hurt, which led to the FIR being lodged. Subsequently, the issue has been finally resolved and the appellant’s Ph.D. Degree has been accepted and recognized.

8. The respondents have specifically denied their alleged role, directly or indirectly, in relation to any doubts which may have been created regarding the Ph.D. thesis of the appellant or any type of social humiliation inflicted upon him. The respondents sincerely undertake before this Court that in the future as well, they will never do any such thing, or make any comments, which may hurt the sentiments and feelings of the appellant in any manner.

9. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appellant and the respondents are faculty members in one of the premier institutes in the country. Their day­to­day conduct must be exemplary as the students of the institution follow in their foot steps. There is a 9 solemn responsibility on the respondents as well as the appellant to ensure that none of their actions should downgrade or demean the institution of renowned academicians who still enjoy the highest respect in our society. The attribution of allegations and counter­allegations also, in a way, damages the reputation of individuals as well as the institution. We, therefore, impress upon the appellant as well as the private respondents to ensure that they work together as a team in the best interests of the institution and their students, and do not allow any unfortunate and untoward incidents to occur which might hurt the sentiments, feelings, respect and dignity of each other.

10. Given this hope, we feel that the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an impediment to restoration of normalcy and bringing cordiality back between the appellant and the respondents in their professional and personal capacities.

11. We, therefore, at this stage, are not inclined to continue with these proceedings and deem it appropriate to dispose of the same, with a recommendation to the Chairman of the Board of Governors to invite the appellant and all the four respondents together and ensure that there are no pending misunderstandings or misgivings between them so as to guarantee professionalism and an ideal academic atmosphere in the institution.

12. The appeal is disposed of at this stage in the afore­mentioned terms.

10

13. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

…………………………………J (SURYA KANT) …………………………………………J (J.K. MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI 14TH FEBRUARY, 2023.

11

ITEM NO.11                  COURT NO.9                SECTION II

                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)      No.3663/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05­03­2020 in CRLMWP No. 33609/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) SUBRAHMANYAM SADERLA Petitioner(s) VERSUS CHANDRA SHEKHAR UPADHYAY & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. IA No. 97073/2020 ­ EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 14­02­2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Singh, Adv. Mr. Kapil Raghav, Adv. Mr. Dishant Bhati, Adv. Ms. Tanya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption application is allowed.
Leave granted.
12
The appeal is disposed of, in terms of the signed Order.
All pending applications also stand disposed of. 
  (VISHAL ANAND)                                  (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR­cum­PS                           COURT MASTER (NSH)
                (Signed Order is placed on the file)