LPA 580/2009 Page 1 of 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: January 7th, 2010 Decided on: February 19th , 2010 + LPA 580/2009 PRANSHU S RAGHUVANSH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Bham Pant, Advocates. versus INDRAPRASTHA INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .... Respondent Through: Mr. Raghu Nayyar with Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest? MUKTA GUPTA, J. 1. The Appellant, a student of B.Tech Course (Information Technology) in Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology was studying in the second year of the said course. On 23rd April, 2009 the Appellant along with LPA 580/2009 Page 2 of 37 two of his friends stayed back in the hostel for preparation of the ongoing exams. However, on the said late evening/night Ishaan, Shashank and the Appellant went to the pool room and then to the computer room. It is the case of the Respondents that Ishaan took the question paper of Theory of Computation (TOC) which was to be conducted on 24th April, 2009 by unauthorisedly accessing the electronic/other records in the room of Dr. Astrid, Academic Coordinator of the Exams. Ishaan gave the question paper to Shashank who copied the same and the Appellant stood there watching their activities. Ishaan also tampered with the electronic data of the academic coordinator. On discovery of the incident when the erring students were called on 25th April, 2009 they gave their written statement in their own handwriting. The statement dated 25th April, 2009 of the Appellant is reproduced:- “We entered the IIIT premises around 10.30 pm. After that I was in the pool room. Ishaan & Shashank entered the room opening the window using the AC window. Shashank found the paper he brought it to the chairs copied it and Ishaan still was in the room searching Astrid Ma’am’s laptop, then Shashank copied the paper and Ishaan closed the room and we came back. And I was near the window when Ishaan started printing. As told by Ishaan, When Ishaan was using the laptop he tried to print some scores, but the printer was out of paper and he gave the cancel command and shut down the laptop. LPA 580/2009 Page 3 of 37 I never entered the room, and was not involved in tampering the marks. Sd/- (Pranshu S. Raghuvansh)” 2. Subsequently, the Appellant was called to the Emergency Senate on 28th April, 2009 where he tendered a prepared written statement which is reproduced as under :- “The day before TOC paper i.e. on 23rd April, 2009 I came to the hostel for preparation. By evening I had covered most of the topics. Ishaan came to me and asked whether I was prepared for the paper, I told him that I had prepared for 60- 70%. Then Ishaan, suggested that we should go to IIIT to play pool or counter strike. When we (Ishaan, Shashank & me) entered IIIT (around 10.30 pm), the guard stopped Ishaan for entry. I went forward to the pool room to set the balls, from the pool room window I noticed Ishaan opening and entering the window of Astrid madam’s room, Shashank was standing at the window, I was surprised and puzzled at this action. Ishaan gave some paper to Shashank and Shashank took the paper to the chairs in front of the classes. Seeing this I left the pool room & when I reached there I found that it was the next day’s TOC paper. I was simply shocked to see this. After some time I said I heard something on the roof and excused myself from the place. I went to the roof and started thinking about what was happening. Then I came back and told them that it was nothing. When I returned I saw that Ishaan was still in the room doing something in Astrid madam’s Laptop. I asked Ishaan through the door what he was doing but he couldn’t hear me, so I went to the window to ask him what he was doing, then I saw that he was printing out something (some kind of table), then he hastily shut down the computer and came out of the room with printout. When Shashank copied the paper he returned it to Ishaan who put it LPA 580/2009 Page 4 of 37 back into the room. Then I insisted them to leave the place and after that we returned back to hostel. On the way back to the hostel I realized that they have come to IIITD with some ulterior motive and I was also made a part of something serious unknowingly, only way out of this was to report the matter to the authorities, which I never had the guts to do. I decided not to see the questions or their answers and do my best on my own. If the questions were known to me I would have attempted all the questions of the paper. It may be confirmed from my answer sheet. As far as changing of marks I didn’t even know about it and it came to my knowledge during the investigation on 25th April. As I never entered the room, I was neither a party to paper incidence nor marks changing. It may be confirmed from the records. I have been a good student and I don’t need to do such type of things. In first semester theory examination I had secured 159 marks (out of 290) and was placed at 5th position. This can be checked from records, for ready reference I am attaching the list mailed to me. I would like to summarise my submission as follows: 1. I was not aware of the intentions and I went there only to play pool. 2. I never entered in the room and was only confined to the public area, entry to which is allowed. 3. I was not involved in leakage and copying of question paper and its answer. 4. I have not altered my scores in any record i.e. have not tampered with the records. 5. I had no prior knowledge of question or their answers. In light of my above submission I humbly request you to kindly consider my case judiciously on the basis of facts stated by me. I have not done any dishonesty either academic or otherwise. Therefore, charges framed against me, if any, may LPA 580/2009 Page 5 of 37 be withdrawn and I must be allowed to sit in written and practical examination.” 3. In the emergency meeting of the Senate the case of Appellant and two others was considered on 28th April, 2009 which recommended the expulsion of the three students that is Appellant Pranshu S. Raghuvansh, Ishaan and Shashank, but before expulsion it was decided to give the students an option to withdraw. Ishaan and Shashank withdrew. However, the Appellant filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.8680/2009 before this Court wherein this Court issued notice to the Respondents. As no interim orders were passed in favour of the Appellant, the said order dated 1st May, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was challenged by the Appellant herein by filing LPA No.207/2009 which was disposed of on 12th May, 2009 with the following directions : “During the course of hearing, both the parties fairly agreed to the disposal of the petition with the direction that the Senate of the respondent Institute would give show-cause notice to the appellant and thereafter, after hearing the appellant and considering his representation pass a reasoned order in the matter. Accordingly, we direct the respondent Institute to give a show-cause notice to the appellant setting out the charges against him within one week from today. It would be open to the appellant to file his reply within one week thereafter. The matter would thereafter be considered by the Senate and after giving a hearing to the appellant, the Senate will pass a reasoned speaking order within a period of two weeks thereafter. In view of the same, the expulsion order passed against the appellant is set aside. However, it is clarified that LPA 580/2009 Page 6 of 37 the setting aside of the expulsion order is not an expression on the merit of the matter. The respondent Institute is entitled to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law.” 4. Pursuant to the order dated 12th May, 2009 of this Court, the Senate served a charge sheet dated 22nd May, 2009 on the Appellant with the following allegations :- “Show Cause Notice Sh. Pranshu Raghuvansh had taken admission in B.Tech (IT) in Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) Delhi in Aug 2008 during the academic session 2008-09. The roll no. allotted to him is 2008038. Mr. Pranshu is served with following charges: 1. Whereas Mr. Pranshu is a day scholar but stayed in hostel for late hours on April, 23rd night without taking any permission to do so. 2. Whereas the group consisting of Mr. Pranshu and two others, namely Mr. Ishaan Maurya, roll no. 2008027, Mr. Shashank, roll no. 2008048 (hereafter also called the group), was involved in a conspiracy to commit, and committed, a very severe act of academic indiscipline and dishonest: i. The group entered the IIITD campus in night around 10.30 pm on April, 23, 2009, with one member of the group signing a false name and other members entering without signing at all, with the intent of illegally accessing the question paper of the Theory of Computing course, and then copying it. During the execution of this plan some members of the group illegally entered into the room of the faculty members who also has been coordinating the academic activities, some members remained outside keeping an eye on these proceedings, and some members of the group helped in copying the paper. ii. The group tampered/altered academic records in the file maintained by the faculty member-some members of the group LPA 580/2009 Page 7 of 37 actually altered the record, while the rest kept an eye on the proceedings, providing security and support. iii. The group altered electronic records maintained in the PC of the concerned faculty member-some members of the group made the changes, while the rest of the group kept an eye on the proceedings. iv. The group illegally took print out of some files from the faculty member’s laptop-some members of the group gave the print command, and some handled/carried the printouts. 3. Whereas Mr. Pranshu helped in covering the above serious violations by hiding information about these serious indiscipline acts from the concerned authorities, and also by complimenting the security guard for facilitating the above acts and not identifying the members the group in front of the Institute authorities. Mr. Pranshu is hereby served the above charges with show cause as to why necessary disciplinary action, which may include expulsion from the institute, should not be taken against him for these severe acts of academic indiscipline and committing offense, particularly in the light of the background that he was involved along with Mr. Ishaan in another serious act of academic indiscipline and dishonesty in Jan 2009, pertaining to impersonation in an exam, to which he admitted in writing and for which he was issued a warning. He may explain his position in writing within one week of this notice, failing which the above charges will be assumed to be true. This charge sheet along with the responses will be deliberated upon by the Senate. For these deliberations, he may be requested to be present in the Institute in case the Senate requires any further information/clarifications. The date of senate meeting will be duly informed. Sd/- Registrar and Secretary to the Senate. IIIT DELHI.” LPA 580/2009 Page 8 of 37 5. The Appellant submitted his reply to the said show cause notice and was given an oral hearing. Considering the reply and oral submissions of the Appellant, the Senate deliberated on the matter on 1st July, 2009 and recorded its conclusion in the minutes. The minutes of the Senate dated 1st July, 2009 are reproduced as under:- “Relevant portion of the Minutes of the Senate Meeting held on July, 1, 2009, 3 pm in IIIT Delhi. Member Present:  Prof. Pankaj Jalote, Director, IIIT Delhi, Chairman  Dr. A. Subramanian, Registrar, IIIT Delhi, Secretary (non- voting)  Dr. Veena Bansal, Faculty, IIIT Delhi  Dr. Astrid Kiehn, Faculty, IIIT Delhi  Dr. Mayank Vatsa, Faculty, IIIT Delhi  Dr. Richa Singh, Faculty, IIIT Delhi  Dr. Vikram Goyal, Faculty, IIIT Delhi  Mr. Sunpreet Arora, Student member, IIIT Delhi  Mr. Saurav Maitra, Student member, IIIT Delhi.  Dr. Saugat Sen, Cadence. Members Present through Audio Conferencing  Prof. Kamal Karnapalam, IIIT Hyderabad.  Prof. Rajat Moona, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur.  Prof. Prem Kalra, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi.  Dr. C. Anantram, TCS,  Dr. Manish Gupta, Associate Director, IBM IRL.  Dr. Pawan Goel, Adobe Systems, Noida. Item: To consider the disciplinary case against Mr. Pranshu Raghuvash LPA 580/2009 Page 9 of 37 [Documents sent to Senate members earlier: Show cause notices; their replies; the minutes of the disciplinary committee meeting; the background note; statements of Shashank and Pranshu given to the Senate; Statements of Ishaan, Pranshu, and Shashank given earlier, statement of Honey; the High Court order.] The Senate Chairman (the Director of IIITD) first explained the situation. He informed about the order passed by the Hon. High court laying a process to be followed by the Senate, which is being followed. As part of this process, a written charge sheet was given to Mr. Pranshu Raghuvansh (dated: May 22, 2009), to which he sent a written reply (dated: June 23, 2009). The charge sheet, the reply, and other documents including the statements of students and earlier recommendation of the disciplinary committee, have been sent to the entire Senate. Based on all the facts, as per the Hon Court’s order, the Senate has been requested to give a reasoned order. He further requested the Senate that in keeping with the spirit of the Hon Court’s judgment, the case should be considered afresh. He also requested the Senate not to be weighed down by the possibility of further litigation, but act as it sees appropriate, in a free and fair manner. He further requested the Senate to first discuss the extent of the indiscipline involved, and thereafter discuss the quantum of punishment, if any, to be given. In response to some of the points made in the reply, the Registrar informed the Senate (i) that Academic Institutions have inherent powers to enforce and maintain discipline in academic matters, and IIIT-D also has these powers to take necessary actions to maintain discipline (Statute -7(3), 21 (2)), (ii) Necessary steps were taken a few weeks ago with regard to the security agency and the guard. (iii) The joint statement of Ishaan and Shashank was not sent, as they had given separate statements later after admitting that they had not explained the complete picture earlier (in any case, this document was already available to Mr. Pranshu from earlier proceedings). During the course of discussions, Mr. Pranshu was invited to the Senate meeting. He made some statements to the Senate LPA 580/2009 Page 10 of 37 (which he also submitted in written form). Mr. Shashank was also invited and he stated that he has nothing more to add beyond his written submission. Mr. Ishaan, even though he was issued a show-cause notice and asked to be present for the Senate meeting, neither sent a reply nor was present, even though the show-cause notice clearly stated that if he does not reply within a week, the charges will be assumed to be true (It should be pointed out that after receiving the show cause notice, he did ask for documents based on which the charges were made, and these were provided to him). After a discussion, the following conclusions were reached: 1. It is clearly established through various statements and evidences that two major acts of indiscipline, both extremely serious, were committed on the night of April 23rd 2009: i. An illegal entry was made into Ms. Astrid’s room, and a question paper for the exam was obtained. Not only do the students involved in the act admit to this, Mr. Honey Singla’s statement also shows that Ishaan knew some exam questions on the night of 23rd. ii. Academic records were altered-both in the hard copy folder maintained, as well as the electronic file in the laptop of Ms. Astrid. The actual records show this, and statements of Ishaan and Shashank also established it. 2. Mr. Pranshu was knowingly a part of the group that planned and committed the act of illegally entering the room of Ms. Astrid’s and obtaining the question paper (their “common cause”). This is established on the following grounds: a. Shashank had said that Ishaan informed him and Pranshu after meeting Ms. Astrid around 3.30 pm that “we can access TOC exam paper as he has some mutual understanding with the security guard of the night shift…. and we mildly accepted but in a light way what he was saying” (Ishaan says that the “guard was known to all three of us”). So, it is clear that a plan was hatched early in the afternoon for the acts done in the night, and Pranshu very much knew about it. (Ishaan, in fact, states that Pranshu participated actively and entered the room and LPA 580/2009 Page 11 of 37 tampered the records along with him). It may be noted that Pranshu is not a resident of the hostel but was present in the hostel on the said night. b. In the initial statements given by Pranshu, Shashank, and Ishaan there is no mention of “going to IIITD to play pool”. And this was not suggested even in the interactions during Sat and Mon (25th and 27th). This “purpose” is stated first in the written statements submitted to the first Senate meeting on the evening of April, 28, clearly suggesting that it is an afterthought and an attempt to escape the consequences of their acts. c. At no point in their statements or in interactions did Shashank and Ishaan indicate that Pranshu was just an “innocent bystander”. If there was an innocent man getting caught, surely his friends (which they were, even according to Pranshu) will try to help him so he does not get punished! d. In general, the reasonable response of an intelligent person who is not involved in an act as serious as this would be to leave the place immediately, and report it to the right authorities. This holds even more here since Pranshu was already under warning from the Institute for an act of indiscipline and academic dishonesty. Pranshu did neither-he stayed in the building till the end and finally left with the group about 2 hours later (during which the room was illegally entered into, the paper was stolen, the paper was copied by hand, record were changed, printing of records was tried, etc.). This again shows that he was very much a part of the group. e. It was said in the court documents that Pranshu “… saw the conduct of the students, he went to the guard of the Institute and informed him but he was indifferent”. But the guard mentions no such reporting by Pranshu in his statement (and denied it during interactions). If he had reported the incident to the guard, even though the guard was indifferent (as Pranshu claims), Pranshu could not have assumed that the guard will not report it to the authorities, and so the natural thing expected of him was to report it to the Institute authorities the same night (e.g. by sending an email) or early next day, particularly if he was not involved. The fact that he made no such attempt, even LPA 580/2009 Page 12 of 37 after it was announced in the class that the break-in has been discovered, indicates that he was very much a part of the act, and not an innocent bystander who tried to stop the serious act, as he claims. f. It is evident that Ishaan had planned this act early in the afternoon and came in the night to execute his plan-otherwise he (both Shashank and Pranshu claim that he signed) will have no reason to sign a fake name in the two night entry registers. Since he came with the intent of “accessing the TOC paper”, he would do everything possible to ensure that there are no witnesses and will clearly not want to bring witnesses along- and according to Pranshu “Ishaan suggested that we go to play pool…” Furthermore, if an “innocent bystander” is witnessing a crime, how can the person committing the crime be so sure that the witness will not report the crime. As Pranshu’s statement does not indicate any coercion/threat from Ishaan to keep silent, it is clear Ishaan was certain that Pranshu will not say anything- this kind of confidence can be there only if Pranshu was a “partner in crime”. g. One cannot loose sight of the fact that the present incident is second offence committed by Pranshu and Ishaan. From the incident of indiscipline in Jan 2009 it is already known that Pranshu is willing to use dishonest means to help his friend Ishaan, even when he himself has nothing to benefit from it. As per Pranshu’s confession: “I, Pranshu, went to the exam…to help my friend Ishaan. We planned that we sit close but Goel Sir made me sit away from him. Finally, when paper ended…we decided….that I should give my paper with his name”. This whole plan was clearly to help Ishaan, as Pranshu, even after getting a 0 in that test, passed comfortably and got a B grade. So, he clearly seems to be inclined and willing to help Ishaan even by participating in acts of sever indiscipline/academic dishonesty where he has nothing to gain. (For this act, as a concession/leniency he (and Ishaan) was only placed under Warning. It is sad to note that this same concession/leniency is now being twisted to suggest that it was a minor act.) LPA 580/2009 Page 13 of 37 h. The fact that Pranshu did not attempt some questions only shows that he could not figure out how to answer them. Even Ishaan did not attempt all questions. Answering the question, even if known, requires knowledge and skill, particularly since one cannot go to anyone else to get the solutions, that too at the last minute. 3. On Friday afternoon, Pranshu, along with three others, went to meet the guard at Dwarka Mor and complimented/thanked him for not identifying the group earlier in the day when Institute authorities had taken the guard to the hostel. The guard has stated this clearly in his written statement (dated May 02). This was a clear attempt to cover up their acts. 4. Though academic performance is not relevant while discussion such acts of indiscipline/dishonesty, it may be mentioned that Pranshu is not as good a student as he claims –in the Discrete Maths course (which he refers to as theory course in first semester), he stood 20 (and not 5th as he has claimed in court documents), and overall in the first semester there are 16 students with a higher SGPA than his. In the Winter 2009 semester his performance was not good (in mid-sem of TOC he got 5 marks out of max of 20). In the summer term he claims he is “ranked first”. However, this is not true, and it should be noted that the students in this summer term are those who failed the subject