The court's decision was influenced by the University's compliance with the expert reports and the absence of wilful disobedience, highlighting the importance of expert opinions in plagiarism cases.

Manmohan, J.

CM Appls. 11130- 11131/2015 in Cont.Cas(C) 918/2013

Keeping in view the averments in the applications, delay in filing and re-filing the rejoinder affidavit is condoned. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.

Cont.Cas(C) 918/2013 & CM Appl. 19026/2013

1. Present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 30th September, 2013 in W.P.(C) 6249/2013 whereby the same was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of respondent No.1 to consider the complaint of Plagiarism against Professor Ainul Hasan in terms of the report of the expert appointed by the University and to take appropriate decision thereon within a period of eight weeks.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that on 06th July, 2006, complaints had been filed by Professors in Delhi and Bombay against Professor Ainul Hasan with regard to the thesis submitted by him in 1986 titled “Farrogah-e-Farrokhzad, her poetry and Problems of the Iranian Society” and the book “Issues & Themes: Studies in Persian Literature”.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners states that Professor S.K. Zeenathulla Javed, an expert appointed by the Jawaharlal Nehru University, found merit in the allegation of Plagiarism levelled against respondent No.2. The relevant portion of the report of Professor S.K. Zeenathulla is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“In my opinion sight of the fact shows that may pages, paragraphs and lines have been copied from Javednama and included in the chapter first (page no. 11 to 18), chapter third (page no. 48 to 82) and chapter seventh (page no. 169-191) of the thesis submitted by Prof. S.A. Hasan. This material could be used as a source but unfortunately Mr. Hasan copied the same material as it exist in Javednama. The scholar could not digest the relevant material and represent it in his own style. Somewhere he tried to replace a few words but did not succeed. Therefore it is clear that the thesis is not his original research and the references and source books are not used properly.”

4. Learned counsel for petitioners states that yet no action has been taken by the respondent-University.

5. Learned counsel for respondent-University states that upon receipt of the initial complaints against Professor Ainul Hasan, the matter was referred to two experts namely, Professor I.K. Burke, Head Department of Arabic & Persian, Kolkata and Professor S.K. Zeenathulla Javed, Malterktla, Punjab.

6. According to learned counsel for respondent-University, since Professor S.K. Zeenathulla Javed despite repeated reminders did not submit his report within the stipulated time, Professor Mahmood Siddiqui, Professor of Persian, M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodra, was appointed as an expert.

7. After examining the Ph.D. thesis of Professor Ainul Hasan, the two experts Professor I.K. Burke and Professor Mahmood Siddiqui expressed their opinion that the thesis had not been plagiarized by respondent No.2.

8. Learned counsel for respondent-University states that thereafter the matter was closed on 26th May, 2010 based on the report of the two experts.

9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners states that the stand of the respondents is incorrect as on 17th September, 2013, the petitioner in response to an RTI application had stated that action against Professor Ainul Hasan was still pending. She also states that the inquiry could not have been closed on 26th May, 2010 as on 30th September, 2013 the respondent had been directed to consider the report of the experts appointed by the University.

10. Having perused the file, this Court finds that after the expert Professor S.K. Zeenathulla Javed had furnished his report finding merit in the allegations of plagiarism, a fresh note was put up by the Evaluation Branch. On Rector’s recommendation, the Vice Chancellor of JNU directed the matter to be placed before the current Committee on Plagiarism on 13th August, 2013. It was in this context that a statement was ma