Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

60. In the instant case, M.Venkataramanappa ought to have submitted the thesis within five years and he could have sought for one year extension. The provisional registration was made on 31.10.1995. The thesis should have been submitted on or before 31.10.2000. Even if he was entitled to extension by one year, he should have submitted the thesis before 31.10.2001. Within the aforesaid period no thesis was submitted. On the contrary on 27.03.2002 he requested for change of language to submit his thesis from English to Kannada with consent of his Guide Dr.Y.Narayana Chetty. On 29.08.2002 permission was accorded by Ph.D. registration Committee for change of both the language from English to Kannada and also guide from Dr.Y.Narayana Chetty to the sixth respondent. On 14.09.2002 the payment prescribed for submission of the thesis was paid by M.Venkataramanappa. On 23.09.2002 he submitted the Ph.D. thesis styled as "Grameena Karnatakada Sanna Raithara Ondu Samaja Shasthriya Adhyayana" in Kannada language. On 11.11.2002 Ph.D. Degree has been awarded to him. The aforesaid dates speak for themselves. A person who could not submit the thesis within a period of six years has with the change of Guide submitted the thesis within one month and within two months the thesis is accepted and he has been awarded the Ph.D. Degree.

62. When this report was placed before the Syndicate after considering the said report and after detailed discussion, the Syndicate on 18.02.2003 resolved to refer the matter to a new expert committee consisting of persons outside Karnataka, as during the course of the proceedings of the Syndicate, Dr.Siddalingaiah, Dean of the Arts Faculty clearly stated that he has examined the thesis submitted by the said M.Venkataramanappa and he was satisfied that there was no plagiarism and no decision should be taken in a hurry. The new expert committee was headed by its Chairman Prof. Hira Adyanthaya, Vice-Chancellor, Tilak Maharastra Vidyapeeth, Pune, Dr.S.V.Shirol and Dr. Venkataratnam as its members. After going through the two books which were made available to them, they were of the opinion that title of both the research work seems to be similar. They found that a detailed explanation from the candidates and the Guide is required to arrive at a decision with regard to the plagiarisation is concerned. Thereafter they called for the explanation from both the Guide and the student. On receipt of the explanation, the same was circulated among them and they gave the report. They stated that the theme of the thesis and the title of the book published by the author (incidentally the guide of the candidate), are in adjacent fields. This might have given rise to the charge of plagiarism from the book under reference. The empirical data collected by the candidate and the focus of the thesis are distinct. However, reproduction of the material by the candidate from the book under reference could have been minimized, annotated and analysed by him. This would have increased the research value of the thesis and indicated the analytical capability of the student. Ph.D. course is a training in research methodology. Therefore it has its inherent limitations. If the candidate wants to publish the thesis in a book form, editorial skills need be employed and norms and proprieties of University Publications observed. Plagiarism as an intellectual offence arises out of verbatim reproduction from a published material without the permission and acknowledgement of the author (and thereby harming the author's right/interest). In this case, the candidate has earlier taken the permission of the guide and the guide has allowed him to use the material from the book. This fact has been acknowledged by both in their explanations. As such, the practice adopted by the candidate does not fall under the charge of plagiarism.

(underlining by us)

63. From the aforesaid second report, it is clear they did not substantially differ from the finding recorded in the earlier report. Because the sixth respondent had given his consent to use the material from his book, according to them, it does not constitute plagiarism. As no action was taken in spite of the aforesaid two reports there was a hue and cry in the academic circles. Therefore, Prof. K. Venkatagiri Gowda, an academician of repute and a former Member of Parliament addressed a letter to the chancellor of the University bringing to his notice the second report and the conclusion reached by the experts and an attempt is made to hush up the whole incident and requested the Chancellor to take appropriate action. It is thereafter the Chancellor after realizing the seriousness of the allegations, noticed that out of three members of the Tilak Maharashtra Vidya Peetha one member was not even familiar with Kannada language and the thesis submitted by the student was in Kannada and therefore they could not understand. Further, he also took note of the fact that the student was registered under guide Dr.Y.Narayana Chetty and even after six years, he was unable to submit any thesis. Then he sought for change of guide and the language. The sixth respondent was appointed as a guide in the month of August 2002 and within a span of one month in September 2002 the thesis is submitted. Therefore, he was of the view that it creates a doubt and suspicion as to how the thesis made entirely in Kannada could have been called a original piece of work by the said Committee of Tilak Maharshtra Vidya Peetha and the University could accept the report. The manner in which the guide had been suddenly changed and the thesis submitted in a short period after change of guide gives rise to doubts of some motive behind the events. Therefore, he appointed Sri K. V. Irniraya, IAS (Retd) to head a Commission with Shri Manohar S. Yadav, Associate Professor, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, as member,

66. The Commission examined all relevant documents and files relating to the issue. The thesis submitted by M.Venkatkaramanappa in Kannada was examined in detail and compared it with the contents of two Kannada books published by his guide sixth respondent in the year 1998. The two Kannada books are:

1. Krishi Karmikaru Ondu Samaja Shastriya Adhyayana;

2. Grameena Baduku Mattu Samajika Chaluvali.

67. In addition, the Ph.D. thesis of Dr.B.C. Mylarappa was also examined in detail by the Commission. It was noticed that the book "Krishi Karmikaru Ondu Samaja Shastriya Adhyayana" is the Kannada version of the guides Ph.D. Thesis in English. On comparing the contents of Shri M.Venkataramanappa Kannada Ph.D. thesis with the contents of his Guide's two Kannada Books, it was found that Sri M.Venkataramanappa had copied nearly 100 pages word to word from these books and put the same in his thesis containing about 200 pages without giving references or acknowledging the source. The details of word to word copying is given below: