Avinash Singh Bagri & Ors vs Registrar Iit Delhi & Anr on 12 August, 2009
3. The respondent University has filed a counter affidavit in which it is
inter alia stated that the petitioner had suppressed material facts from this
Court. It is informed that the petitioner had applied for re-evaluation of his
case; that the Re-evaluation Committee had met on 20th to 24th August, 2009
but found that the petitioner had copied substantial sections from internet
sources and selective books; that despite several written warnings, the
petitioner had been indulging into repeated plagiarism; that the petitioner
could manage 'C' grade in two papers in the second semester only after
applying moderation; that repeated plagiarism constituted serious offence
and the petitioner was not entitled to continue with the M. Phil. Programme
on this ground alone. It is further pleaded that the petitioner on 9th
September, 2009 had made another representation to the University and in
pursuance whereto a Special Committee was constituted which met on 30th
October, 2009; that the Special Committee after examining the case
including in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avinash
Singh Bagri Vs. Registrar IIT, Delhi (2009) 8 SCC 220 and of this Court in
W.P.(C) 590/2010 Page 3 of 6
Amritashva Kamal Vs. JNU 2007 (99) DRJ 528 concluded that the
petitioner was involved in substantial repeated acts of plagiarism and that
repeated and intentional plagiarism cannot be condoned and that it was not
simply a case of low CGPA.