The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposes the matter relating to O.P. Jindal Global University

OP Jindal University
New Delhi [India], November 19: The Civil Writ Petition filed by Kaustubh Anil Shakkarwar ("Petitioner") was listed before Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court ("High Court") for admission on November 18, 2024. Apropos the extremely lenient view adopted by O.P. Jindal Global University ("JGU"/ "University") in the said matter, the High Court, while disposing of the matter, opined that the primary concern of the Petitioner had been duly addressed, thereby rendering all remaining issues as academic and moot in nature.
In this matter, the University had received dasti notice on November 13, 2024, pursuant to which, in the hearing dated November 14, 2024, the University was represented by Senior Advocate, Chetan Mittal, and Advocates Ajay Bhargava and Himanshu Gupta. On that day itself, Senior Advocate Mittal submitted before the High Court that the Petitioner had concealed in their petition the e-mail dated October 13, 2024, sent by the Registrar of the University. In the said e-mail, the Registrar had informed the Petitioner that since they have already cleared the re-sit examination for 'Law and Justice in a Globalizing World', the University had taken a benevolent stance in the matter and had restored their internal assessment marks as an extraordinary measure. Further, the University also informed the Petitioner that their final grade (in the said course) would be reflected in the transcript without any asterisks or annotations. This order passed by the University was rather having sufficient evidence of high percentage of AI-generated content detected in the end term submission of the Petitioner, for which the University could have taken a stricter action and thus the present writ petition is totally misconceived.
During the course of arguments, Senior Advocate, Mittal pointed out before the High Court that in his opinion the Petitioner's argument pertaining to AI-generated texts and plagiarism was misplaced. In fact, using of AI-generated texts for submitting any academic work would render it fit to constitute a violation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018. As per these Regulations, any similarity (in the form of plagiarism) in excess of 60% content makes the student liable to be expelled from the programme they are enrolled in. However, the University consciously decided not to resort to the highest penalty which would have severely jeopardized the Petitioner's academic interest and professional endeavours, especially in light of the fact that the Petitioner is a practising advocate.
The High Court took note of the Registrar's e-mail and also reviewed the unofficial transcript of the Petitioner, as it stood on that day, to satisfy itself vis-a-vis the fulfilment of the commitment made by the University to the student. Thereafter, the High Court inquired from the advocates, who were representing the Petitioner, that in light of the Registrar's e-mail whether they were still willing to pursue the said petition. The Petitioner's advocates requested the High Court that the matter may be listed at a short date for the Petitioner to assess the development in the matter and decide their further course of action. Accordingly, the High Court vide order dated November 14, 2024, adjourned the matter to November 18, 2024.
Pursuant to this order, the Petitioner requested the University to issue them a signed copy of the Official Transcript, as it presently stood. The University gratified this request and supplied the signed copy of the Official Transcript to the Petitioner, incorporating the commitments contemplated in the Registrar's e-mail. Accordingly, the High Court observed that considering the University addressing the primary concern of the Petitioner, the petition was rendered infructuous and the additional issues raised therein did not merit any further consideration at this stage.
Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate who was the lead counsel on this matter observed, "The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is a thoughtful and well-reasoned conclusion. It was surprising that after having engaged in plagiarism that ought to have led to the expulsion of the concerned petitioner who is a lawyer-student, he resorted to this case, which from the very beginning had no basis in law. The University had already provided the highest possible relief to the lawyer-student concerned by allowing a repeat examination with no prejudice whatsoever. Instead of appreciating the benevolence of the University for not to have taken the logical step of expelling the student as per the UGC regulations relating to plagiarism, the lawyer-student chose to come before the Court as a Petitioner. This matter once again restored the academic freedom and institutional autonomy of universities, especially when matters are relating to academic honesty and integrity. The Court's decision to close the matter as infructuous sends the right signals to all students and other stakeholders that they should maintain academic integrity and not to ever be engaged in any form of plagiarism or any other form of academic misconduct."
Commenting on the outcome of the case, Ajay Bhargava, Partner, Khaitan & Co. observed, "The decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in disposing this matter and deciding that it is no longer relevant of taking forward as it has become infructuous is welcomed. The principal issue surrounding the dispute was academic honesty, intellectual integrity and professional conduct. The Court concluded after taking cognizance of the fact that the Petitioner has already got relief from the University in the form of a repeat exam and that there was nothing left in pursuing as a legal issue. The University had earlier failed the lawyer-student concerned in this case on the ground of plagiarism and academic misconduct. However, the university was considerate to give an additional opportunity to the lawyer-student to take the repeat exam after he had been marked as "failed" on account of plagiarism. It was brought out before the Hon'ble Court that the University has acted in a fair and reasonable manner."
(ADVERTORIAL DISCLAIMER: The above press release has been provided by OP Jindal University. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same)