Dr T G Sitharam v. Indian Institute of Science (Iisc)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22114 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:

DR. T.G.SITHARAM, SON OF LATE T.S GUNDURAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28, I MAIN, VHCS LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR III STAGE, IV BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.S.HARISH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISC), C.V RAMAN AVENUE, BENGALURU - 560 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶2MR. KRIS GOPALKRISHNAN, CHAIRMAN, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, C.V RAMAN AVENUE, BENGALURU - 560 012.

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40627( WP(No.(22114(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010486892026( ( (

3., DR.,G.,RANGARAJAN,, DIRECTOR,INDIAN,INSTITUTE,, OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., ,

4., DR.,NAGESH,KUMAR,, REGISTRAR,INDIAN,, INSTITUTE,OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., ,

5., COMMITTEE,FOR,ACADEMIC,INTEGRITY,IN, RESEARCH,(CAIR),AND,, THE,ETHICS,COMMITTEE, INDIAN,INSTITUTE,OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., REPRESENTED,BY,THE,CHAIRMAN,, PROF.,S,RAMAKRISHNAN., ,

6., PROF.,S,RAMAKRISHNAN,, CHAIRMAN,, CAIR,AND,ETHICS,COMMITTEE,,, DEPARTMENT,OF,INORGANIC,AND,, PHYSICAL,CHEMISTRY,,, INDIAN,INSTITUTE,OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., ,

7., PROF.,T.A.ABHINANDANAN,, DEPARTMENT,OF,MATERIALS,ENGINEERING,,, MEMBER,,, CAIR,AND,ETHICS,COMMITTEE,, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40627( WP(No.(22114(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010486892026( ( ( INDIAN,INSTITUTE,OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., ,

8., PROF.,ANJULA,GURTOO,, DEPARTMENT,OF,MANAGEMENT,STUDIES,,, MEMBER,,, CAIR,AND,ETHICS,COMMITTEE,, INDIAN,INSTITUTE,OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., ,

9., PROF.,VIJAY,B.,SHENOY,, DEPARTMENT,OF,PHYSICS,,, MEMBER,,CAIR,AND,ETHICS,COMMITTEE,,, INDIAN,INSTITUTE,OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., ,

10., PROF.,DIPANKAR,NANDI,, DEPARTMENT,OF,BIOCHEMISTRY,,, MEMBER,,CAIR,AND,ETHICS,COMMITTEE,,, INDIAN,INSTITUTE,OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., ,

11., PROF.,MADHAVI,LATHA,G.,, DEPARTMENT,OF,CIVIL,ENGINEERING,,, INDIAN,INSTITUTE,OF,SCIENCE,,, C.V,RAMAN,AVENUE,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.SYED,KASHIF,ALI,AND,SRI.,PRADEEP,S,,SAWKAR,,, ,,,,,,ADVOCATES,FOR,R1,AND,R4), ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40627( WP(No.(22114(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010486892026( ( ( , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,A.,QUASH,BY,WRIT, OF,CERTIORARI,OR,ANY,OTHER,APPROPRIATE,WRIT,OR,ORDER, DIRECTION, IN, THE, NATURE, OF, WRIT,, THE, REPORT, AND, RECOMMENDATION, OF, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.5, COMMITTEE, DATED,18.06.2026,AS,PER,ANNEXURE,-,A,AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY,, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,SURAJ,GOVINDARAJ, ( ORAL(ORDER( (

¶1Sri., Syed, Kashif, Ali, and, Sri., Pradeep, S, Sawkar,,, learned, advocates, accept, notice, for, respondent, Nos.1,to,4., ,

¶2Notice,to,respondent,Nos.5,to,11,is,dispensed,with,in, view,of,the,proposed,order,to,be,passed.,

¶3Petitioner, is, before, this, Court, seeking, for, the, following,reliefs:, ", a.,Quash, by,writ,of,Certiorari,or, any, other, appropriate, writ, or, order, direction, in, the, nature, of, writ,, the, "Report, and, Recommendation", of, the, Respondent, No.5,

Committee dated

18.06.2026 as per ANNEXURE-'A'. b. Declare that the procedure adopted by the Respondent No.5 Committee in withholding of the Reply filed by the Respondent No.11 to the Complaint as per ANNEXURE-'E' dated

19.11.2025 filed by the petitioner citing confidentiality is illegal and opposed to principles of Natural Justice; c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents No.1 to 4 to constitute a CAIR & Ethics Committee with persons of competence and expertise to deal with the Complaint of the petitioner. d. Award the costs of this petition; and e. Such other and further relief as may be just and necessary in the interest of justice."

¶4The petitioner, is a Senior Professor in respondent No.1-institute namely, Indian Institute of Science (hereinafter for brevity, 'IISc'). The petitioner had lodged a complaint as regards respondent No.11 being a Post-Doctoral Researcher, for Plagiarism and Ethical Violation of the IISc Policy for Academic Integrity in Research, Misrepresentation of the Role of respondent No.11 in 'Chenab Railway Bridge

Project', Misattribution of Contribution within IISc and Disregard of Primary Contributors and Ethical Misrepresentation by respondent No.11.

¶5A preliminary inquiry having been done by the Committee of Academy Integrity in Research (hereinafter, for brevity, 'CAIR') and a report having been submitted, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the said report.

¶6The submission of Sri Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CAIR has not conducted inquiry in a proper manner and the principles of natural justice have not been applied to the petitioner inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been provided an opportunity of being heard in the matter before the CAIR submitted its report and on that ground, he submits that the report is required to be set aside.

¶7Though the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that an appeal is available under Rule 8.1 of the said Policy, this Court cannot accede to the said submission made, inasmuch as, the Scheme of the Policy provides for a complaint to be filed in respect of the aspects which have been adverted to in the complaint and in terms of Clause

(e) of Rule 3, a Preliminary Investigation is to be conducted, which is also known as a fact finding inquiry by the CAIR. The CAIR in terms of Clause (b) of Rule 3, is a Committee formed by the Director consisting of such members as deemed fit by the Director to preliminarily inquire into the veracity of a complaint as per Rule 5 of the Policy.

¶8In terms of Rule 5, on receipt of a complaint, the Director shall forward the same to the CAIR for preliminary investigation. The inquiry is to be conducted in terms of Rule 6.

¶9Clause (a) of Rule 6 provides for preliminary inquiry by the CAIR, who is required to gather the preliminary information and fact find, so as to assess whether such complaint has substance and if so, whether an inquiry is warranted. The preliminary inquiry is to be conducted as expeditiously as possible and should normally be concluded within 45 days from the date of receipt of the complaint along with all details by the CAIR in terms of Clause (b) of Rule 6. It is this report of the CAIR which has been furnished as of now.

¶10In terms of Clause (b) of Rule 6, the phase of inquiry would start when the Inquiry Authority receives the report of the preliminary inquiry conducted by CAIR along with recommendations from the Director and then, as per the procedure as provided at Annexure-I, appended to the Policy is applied and thereafter in terms of Clause (c) of Rule 6, corrective action is to be taken on the basis of the Inquiry Report.

¶11At present, what has been conducted is a preliminary inquiry by CAIR and not an inquiry by the Inquiry Authority. The preliminary inquiry report is required to be placed before the Director and the Director along with his recommendation, is to forward it to the inquiry authority. The preliminary inquiry by the CAIR is not the final report, but, it is only a preliminary report. It is but required for the Director on receipt of the preliminary inquiry report to make his recommendations to the Inquiry Authority. It is only on the Inquiry Authority completing the inquiry that the question of taking any decision or corrective action would arise.

¶12At present, the appellate remedy provided under Rule8.1 is for any person aggrieved by the Report-cum-Findings and the consequent action taken by a Disciplinary Authority, such aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Competent Authority as per Byelaw 22 of the Scheme Regulations Byelaws, if the

aggrieved party is an employee and to the Director if the aggrieved party is a student.

¶13The question of an aggrieved party would arise only after the Report-cum-Findings are placed and consequent action is taken by a disciplinary authority and not before that.

¶14As indicated supra, the stage at which the matter is now is of preliminary inquiry conducted by the CAIR and report submitted to the Director.

¶15It is only after the Director makes a recommendation to the Inquiry Committee, that the Inquiry Authority would conduct a inquiry. At that stage, there would be two options:- (i) for the Inquiry Committee to drop the proceedings or (ii) to go ahead with the inquiry. It is only when such a decision is taken by the Inquiry Committee, can the petitioner be said to be an aggrieved party, inasmuch as, dropping of the proceedings would also be a consequent action. As

indicated, a preliminary inquiry report having been submitted by CAIR, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved as of now.

¶16Reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Report-cum-Findings and the consequent action taken by Disciplinary Authority, if so advised, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21