# Prof Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 579
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-05
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prof-chandra-shekhar-upadhyay-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45860
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Anupam
Kumar, Sri T.P. Singh

A. Quashing of FIR-Comment or taunting on
specialization of knowledge in a close door
meeting-is not publication which affects the
reputation -provision of section 500 IPC-not
attracted;

Section 66 D of Information Technology
(Ammendment )Act, 2008 applies if cheating by
personation -No offence under sections in which
FIR registered are made out-F.I.R. quashed.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

Held, Comments or taunting of a person in
respect of his 16 specialization of knowledge in
a close door meeting i.e. during the course of
interview cannot be said to be a publication of
something which affects the reputation of any
person and such observations or comments, in
our view, will not attract Section 500 IPC. This
situation, if accepted, may result in everyday
complaints against the member of interview
board or the persons performing judicial or
quasi judicial functions whenever they make any
observation with regard to understanding or
knowledge of another person. (para 26)

So far as publication of E-mail is concerned,
complaint itself shows that it was sent by some
unknown person and there is nothing to show
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that E-mail was sent by any of these petitioners
and, therefore, for the said E-mail, Section 500
IPC cannot be attracted against petitioners.
(para 27)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,861 of 41,272. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39861 for what follows._

6 All. Prof Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
579
Union of India & ors Vs. Parul Debnath
& ors JT 2009 (9) SC 134 wherein Court
has held as under:

"....Court
cannot
direct
the
creation of posts since the same is
prerogative of the executive or the
legislative authorities and the Court could
not arrogate to itself this purely executive
or legislative function and direct creation
of the posts in the organization. It was also
observed that this Court has, time and
again, pointed out that the creation of a
post is an executive and legislative function
as it involves economic factors". (emphasis
added)

41. The same view has been reiterated
in Maharastra State Road Transport
Corporation & Anr Vs. Casteribe Rajya
P. Karmchari Sanghatana JT 2009 (11)
SC 609.

42. Next prayer that respondents be
directed not to proceed unless sanction is
granted by State Government also cannot
be accepted for the reason that, whether
sanction can be granted or not is within the
authority of State Government. This Court
can only examine whether sanction is
necessary or not and if necessary, whether
it
has
been
granted
before
taking
cognizance but no mandamus can be issued
to competent authority to act in a particular
manner.

43. In the entirety of facts and
circumstances, we find no merit in the writ
petition. Dismissed accordingly. Interim
order, if any, stands vacated.
----------
(2020)06ILR A579
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2020
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. - 33609 of 2018

Prof Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Sri Girijesh
Kumar
Gupta,
Sri
Gopal
Swarup
Chaturvedi, Sri Ratnesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Anupam
Kumar, Sri T.P. Singh

A. Quashing of FIR-Comment or taunting on
specialization of knowledge in a close door
meeting-is not publication which affects the
reputation -provision of section 500 IPC-not
attracted;

Section 66 D of Information Technology
(Ammendment )Act, 2008 applies if cheating by
personation -No offence under sections in which
FIR registered are made out-F.I.R. quashed.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

Held, Comments or taunting of a person in
respect of his 16 specialization of knowledge in
a close door meeting i.e. during the course of
interview cannot be said to be a publication of
something which affects the reputation of any
person and such observations or comments, in
our view, will not attract Section 500 IPC. This
situation, if accepted, may result in everyday
complaints against the member of interview
board or the persons performing judicial or
quasi judicial functions whenever they make any
observation with regard to understanding or
knowledge of another person. (para 26)

So far as publication of E-mail is concerned,
complaint itself shows that it was sent by some
unknown person and there is nothing to show
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that E-mail was sent by any of these petitioners
and, therefore, for the said E-mail, Section 500
IPC cannot be attracted against petitioners.
(para 27)

List of cases cited:-

1. Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and
another 1989 (1) SCC 494

2. D.F. Marion v. Davis 10 55 ALR 171

3.Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs.
Dilipkumar
Raghavendranath
Nadkarni
and
Others (1983) 1 SCC 124

4.Vishwanath S/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla
15 Vishwanath Agrawal 2012 (6) SCALE 190

5.Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and Others
2013 (2) SCC 398

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
 &
 Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for
petitioners, Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Anupam Kumar,
learned counsel for respondent-4 and learned
AGA for respondents-1, 2 and 3.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India has been filed by
petitioners,
Professor
Chandra
Shekhar
Upadhyay, Professor Sanjay Mittal, Professor
Rajiv Shekhar and Professor Ishan Sharma all
working in Indian Institute of Technology
(hereinafter referred to as "IIT") with a prayer
to issue a writ of certiorari to quash First
Information Report (hereinafter referred to as
"FIR") registered as Case Crime No.1283 of
2018, under Sections 500 IPC, Section 66D of
Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter
referred to as "Act, 2000") amended by
Information Technology (Amendment) Act,
2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment
Act, 2008") and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2015
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1989"), at
Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur
Nagar.

3. Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Counsel contended that even if
allegations contained in FIR are taken to be
true, offences under aforesaid sections are not
made out and, therefore, entire proceedings
against petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR,
are wholly illegal and amounts to gross abuse of
process of law.

4. Thus, we have to consider "whether
offences under the provisions wherein FIR
has been registered are made out or not".
For this purpose, it will be appropriate to
reproduce the contents of FIR as under:-

^^lsok esa] Jheku th Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;
Fkkuk&dY;k.kiqj dkuiqj uxj mRrj izns'k 208016
fo"k;&lqcze.;e vflLVsaV izksQslj ,;jksLisl foHkkx
vkbZ vkbZ Vh dkuiqj dks cnuke djus ds fy,
vKkr O;fDr }kjk QthZ nLrkost lfgr rkjh[k
15-10-2018 ds bZ&esy ds lEcU/k esa lwpuk rFkk
,Q vkbZ vkj ntZ djus ds fuosnu gsrq izkFkZuk
i= egksn; 1& esjk uke lqcze.;e lnjsyk gS ,oa
esjh fu;qfDr vkbZ vkbZ Vh dkuiqj ds ,;jksLisl
foHkkx esa rkjh[k 28 fnlEcj 2017 dh x;hA 2&
blds iwoZ tqykbZ 2017 es vkbZ vkbZ Vh dkuiqj us
lHkh
foHkkxksa
ds
fy,
,llh@,lVh@vkschlh@ihMCY;wMh Jsf.k;ksa ls
lacaf/kr ladk; dh HkrhZ ds fy, fo'ks"k vfHk;ku
dh foKfIr dh vkSj eSaus bl vfHk;ku ds rgr
vkosnu fd;k FkkA eSaus vkbZ vkbZ Vh dkuiqj ls
viuk ijkLukrd vkSj ih,pMh Hkh iwjk fd;k gSA
3& vkbZ vkbZ Vh dkuiqj dh HkrhZ izfdz;k ds ,d
fgLls ds :i esa] eq>s vDVqcj 2017 esa ,;jksLisl
bathfu;fjax foHkkx esa laxks"Bh ds fy, cqyk;k
x;kA bl laxks"Bh ds nkSjku] Mk0 bZ'kku 'kekZ
1⁄4dsfedy bathfu;fjax foHkkx1⁄2 us muds migkl ds
6 All. Prof Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
nkSjku ,d lewg dk usr`Ro fd;k vkSj o [kqysvke
esjs 1⁄4Mk0 lSnjyk1⁄2 ds ckjs esa fVIi.kh djrs jgsA
mUgksaus vius oDrO;ksa ds ek/;e ls eq>s fuEu cqf)
dk crk;k] eSaus vius vki dks Hk;Hkhr vkSj
viekfur eglwl fd;k ysfdu fQj Hkh eSus muds
lokyksa dk tckc nsus dh dksf'k'k dh D;ksafd esjs
ikl fo"k; ij fo'ks"kK+rk vkSj Kku Fkk vkSj
ftudk eSaus jk"V~h; @ varjk"V~h; eapks ij
izLrqrhdj.k Hkh fd;k FkkA 4& Mk bZ'kku 'kekZ ds
uhpk fn[kkus dh dksf'k'k ds ckotwn eq>s foHkkx
,oa laLFkku us esjh mEehnokjh dh flQkfj'k dhA
mlds ckn bl lEcU/k esa 26 tuojh 2017 dks
ckgjh fo'ks"kKksa dh ,d lfefr us tkap dh vkSj
esjh fu;qfDr ds fy, flQkfj'k dhA cksMZ ds v/;{k
}kjk vuqeksnu ds ckn eq>s fu;qfDr i= 28
fnlECj 2017 dks tkjh fd;k x;kA eSaus 1 tuojh
2018 dks viuk inHkkj laHkkykA 5& fnukad 0401-2018 dks foHkkx es 'kkfey gksus ds rqjar ckn]
foHkkx dh ,d laxks"Bh esa esjs f[kykQ Jh lat;
feRry us O;aX;kRed vkSj viekutud fVIi.kh
dh] fd u, ladk; ds 'kkfey gksus ds dkj.k
foHkkx ds ekudksa esa deh vk jgh gSA blds ckn
9-01-2018 dks Mk lat; feRry us eq>s vkSj Mk
jk?kosUnz dks NksMdj ,;jksLisl bathfu;fjax foHkkx
ds lHkh ladk; lnL;ksa dks bZesy Hkstk] vkSj
mUgksaus 10-10-2018 dks ,d ladk; cSBd cqykbZA
6& cSBd ds nkSjku ,jksLis'k bathfu;fjax foHkkx
ds vf/kdka'k ladk; lnL; mifLFkr Fks tgkW esjh
fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa rhu ?kaVs ls vf/kd le; rd
,d ppkZ pyhA ;g irk pyk gS fd cSBd ds
nkSjku] Mk0 lat; feRry] Mk0 pUnz'ks[kj mik/;k;
vkSj Mk0 ncksike nkl] ,jksLisl bathfu;fjx
foHkkx ds lHkh ofj"B izksQsljksa us twfu;j izksQslj
dks twfu;j izksQsljksa dks ;g le>kus ds iz;kl
fd, fd esjh fu;qfDr bl foHkkx ds fy,
vuqi;qDr gS rFkk eSa ekufld :i ls Hkh v;ksX;
gSwA 7& bl lcds nkSjku Mk0 lh-,l- mik/;k; us
esjs 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i=ksa dks xyr rjhds ls izLrqr
djus ds fy, ,d vfHk;ku 'kq: fd;k] ftlesa ;g
crk;k x;k fd eSa ,d ladk; ds :i esa fu;qDr
fd, tkus ds fy, mi;qDr ugha gwWaA 8& bu lc
ckrksa ls ijs'kku gksdj eSaus 12-01-2018 dks ,d bZ
esy funs'kd egksn; dks vkSj vius foHkkxk/;{k dks
dkih 1⁄4CC1⁄2 esa Hkstrs gq, viuh O;Fkk crkbZ dh eSa
,oa esjk ifjokj bl nq"izpkj ls ekufld :i ls
mRihMu dk f'kdkj gq, gSa vkSj ;g lc blfy, gS
dh eSa vuqlwfpr tkfr leqnk; ls lacaf/kr gwWaA 9&
esjs izkFkZuk i= dk laKku ysrs rq, ,oa cksMZ vkWQ
xouZj (BOG) ds ijke'kZ ij funsZ'kd egksn; us
,d desVh (Fact Finding Committee) dk
xBu fd;k ftls fuEufyf[kr rF; lkeus ykus dk
funsZ'k fn;k x;kA 1⁄4d1⁄2 ^^esjs MkW lSnjyk** izfr
fd;k x;k HksnHkko ,oa mRihMu dks LFkkfir djuk
1⁄4[k1⁄2 lgh ik,a tkus ij bu O;fDR;ksa dh igpku o
muds }kjk mBk;s x;s dneksa dks LFkkfir djukA
10& Mk0 mik/;k; }kjk nq"izsfjr izpkj vHkh Fkek
Hkh ugha Fkk dh 01-02-2018 dks Mk0 jktho 'ksdj
us lHkh lsusVjksa dks ,d bZ&esy izsf"kr fd;k ftlesa
fy[kk Fkk fd nl lky igys dh ?kVuk fQj ls
?kfVr gqbZ gS ftlus 'kSf{kd uhao dks iwjh rjg ls
fgyk fn;k gS mUgksaus vkxs fy[kk dh vfHk"kki us
fQj ls izHkkfor fd;k gS ;gka bldk mYys[k
djuk pkgwaxk dh lsusVjksa esa dsoy vkbZ vkbZ Vh
dkuiqj ds gh ugha oju ckgj ds f'k{k.k laLFkkuksa
ds iz/;kid Hkh vkrs gSaA vkSj Mk0 jktho 'ks[kj us
mu lHkh dks bl nq"izpkj esa ?klhVus dh dksf'k'k
dh gSA 11& Mk0 jktho 'ksk[kj dk mDr bZ&esy
esjs laKku esa vk;k vkSj blls eSa vkSj esjk ifjokj
O;fFkr gq,A fnukad 01-02-2018 dks eSaus funsZ'kd
egksn; dks i= fy[kdj bl ?kVuk dks jk"V~h;
vk;ksx vuqlwfpr tkfr esa ys tkus dh vuqefr
ekaxhA 12& desVh 1⁄4QSDV QkbfMax desVh1⁄2 us
viuh fjiksVZ funsZ'kd egksn; dks 08 ekpZ 2018
dks lkSaihA tkap esa desVh us esjh fu;qDr ij lgh
ik;k vksj Mk0 bZ'kku] Mk0 lat; feRry] Mk0
jktho 'ks[kj vkSj Mk0 pUnz'ks[kj mik/;k; dks
muds }kjk fd;s x, esjs mRihMu ds fy, nks"kh
ik;kA desVh us ,l lh @ ,l Vh ds rgr
dk;Zokgh dh Hkh flQkfj'k dhA 13& mDr ?kVuk
dk laKku ysrs gq, jk"V~h; vk;ksx vuqlwfpr tkfr
1⁄4,l lh ,l lh1⁄2 us 13 ekpZ 2018 dks funs'kd
egksn; dks ,d uksfVl tkjh fd;k vkSj mUgsa
O;fDrxr rkSj ij f'kdk;rdrkZ o foHkkxk/;{k ds
lkFk vk;ksx esa 10 vizSy 2018 dsk lEiUu gqbZA
ehfVax esa laiw.kZ ?kVuk dh xaHkhjrk dk laKku ysrs
gq, ,d foHkkxh; tkap mu pkjksa izk/;kidksa dks
f[kykQ 'kq: djus dh laLrqfr dh x;hA 15& 10
vizSy 2018 dks ekuuh; vk;ksx ds v/;{k
izk/;kid Mk0 jke 'kadj dFksfj;k th dh v/;{krk
esa lquokbZ gqbZ vkSj mlh fnu vk;ksx us viuk
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vkns'k ns fn;k ftldks laLFkku dks 13 vizSy
2018 dks ns fn;k x;kA 16& mlds i'pkr pkjksa
ladk; lnL; vFkkZr Mk0 lat; feRry] Mk0
pUnz'ksk[kj mik/;k; Mk0 bZ'kku 'kekZ rFkk Mk0
jktho 'ks[kj bykgkckn gkbZdksVZ x, vkSj dksVZ us
pkjks dks jk"V~h; vk;ksx vuqlwfpr tkfr ds fn'kk
funsZ'k ds fo:) ^^LVs** LFkxu ns fn;kA 17&
LFkxu ds i'pkr Hkh bldh vuqefr nh x;h fd
laLFkku viuh rjQ ls bu fo"k; ij tkap djk
ldsA ekuuh; tfLVl fln~nhdh ^^vodk'k izkIr**
dks laLFkku us crkSj tkap vf/kdkjh 05 bZ 2018
dks vkns'k la[;k IITK/DC-125/LC-43 ds rgr
tkap dh ftEesnkjh lkSaihA ,d vU; izfrf"Br
ladk; ^^ladk; ^^vodk'k izkIr** lnL; dks Hkh
tfLVl Jh fln~nhdh ds lgk;d ds rkSj ij
fu;qDr fd;k x;kA 18& ekuuh; tfLVl Jh
fln~nhdh us viuh tkap fjiksVZ ch vks th dks
layXud ds :i esa 17-08-2018 dks lkSaihA fjiksVZ
ds eq[; :i ls fuEufyf[kr rF;ksa dks LFkkfir
fd;k x;kA 1⁄4,1⁄2 esjs vkbZ vkbZ Vh esa fu;qfDr dh
izfdz;k dks iw.kZ :i ls lgh ik;k x;kA 1⁄4ch1⁄2 tkap
esa pkjksa ladk; lnL; vFkkZr Mk- lat; feRry]
Mk0 pUnz'ks[kj mik/;k; Mk0 bZ'kku 'kekZ rFkk Mk0
jktho 'ks[kj dks Conduct Rule (Schedule-B)
rule 3 (a) and (b) Under Status 13 (17) of
IIT status ds vUrxZr xaHkhj nqO;Zogkj dk nks"kh
ik;k x;kA 1⁄4lh1⁄2 lHkh pkjksa ladk; lnL; MkW0
lat; feRry] Mk0 pUnz'ks[kj mik/;k; Mk0 bZ'kku
'kekZ rFkk Mk0 jktho 'ks[kj dks vuqlwfpr tkfr
ls lEcfU/kr O;fDr dk lsD'ku 3 vkQ , ,DV
ua0&33 vkQ 1989 esa lkoZtfud rkSj ij migkl
djus o izrkfMr djus dk nks"kh ik;k x;kA 19&
fnukad 06-09-2018 dks ch vks th dh ehfVax esa
lquus esa ;g vk;k fd nks ladk; izfrfuf/k;ksa] Mk0
nsoksie nkl o MkW0 ,e,y,u jko ds ncko ds
dkj.k cksMZ us dsoy lhlh,l mYya?ku dks ekuk
rFkk lsD'ku 3 vkQ , ,DV ua0 33 vkQ 1989
^^izsosU'ku vkQ ,V~ksflVht ,DV** ds vUrxZr gksus
okys vijk/k dks udkj fn;kA 20& bl chp
jk"V~h; vuqlwfpr tkfr us Mk0 lnjsyk Mk0 , ds
?kks"k] vkbZ vkbZ Vh dkuiqj ds funsZ'kd] egksn; us
ekuuh; tfLVl Jh fln~nhdh ds fjiksVZ ds lanHkZ
esa fnukad 10-09-2018 dks viuh ubZ fnYyh ds
vkfQl esa cqyk;kA ogka pyh cSBd esa ch vks th
1⁄4vkbZ vkbZ Vh ds1⁄2 esa fy, x;s fu.kZ; ij rFkk
lsD'ku 3 vkQ , ,DV ua0 33 vkQ 1989
^^izsosU'ku vkQ ,V~ksflVht ,DV** ds vUrxZr gksus
okys vijk/k dks udkjus ij xaHkhj vlarks"k izdV
fd;k x;k ,oa vk;ksx us iqu% funsZ'k fn;sA 21&
bl funsZ'k ds foi{k esa pkjksa vkjksfi;ksa us iqu% 2609-2018 dks fjV fiVh'ku 32585@2018 ds rgr
bykgkckn gkbZdksVZ ls LVs ys fy;kA 22& chvksth
lnL;ksa dh ehfVax ls igys ch vks th ij izHkko
Mkyus gsrq fnukad 15-10-2018 dks ,d vKkr
O;fDr ds }kjk studentiitk@gmail.com bZesy
vkbZ Mh ls ,d esy cM+h la[;k esa ofj"B la[;k;sa
lnL;ksa esa izlkfjr djds ;g fn[kkus dh dksf'k'k
dh xbZ] fd eSaus 1⁄4Mk0 lnjsyk1⁄2 viuh ih-,p-Mh-
nwljs ls udy djds iwjh dh gSA bl bZ esy esa
;g Hkh nkok fd;k x;k fd esjh Mk0 lnjsyk dh]
ih,pMh fMxzh okil ysus pkfg,A 1⁄4ftlls esjh
ukSdjh pyh tk,xh1⁄2 ;g bZ esy vkbZ Mh vc
miyC/k ugha gSA blls yxrk gS fd bl vkbZMh
dk fuekZ.k flQZ eq>s uhpk fn[kkus ds fy, fd;k
x;k FkkA ;g lc dqN ;g lkfcr djus ds fy,
fd;k x;k fd eSa vuqlwfpr tkfr dk gwWa ,oa esjh
ckSf)d Lrj vkbZ vkbZ Vh esa i<+kus yk;d ugha gSA
blls esjs LokfHkeku dks o lkekftd lEeku dks
xaHkhj {kfr igqWaph gS vkSj eq>s xaHkhj ekufld
volkn >syuk iM+k gSA eq>s lansg gS fd ;g bZ
esy mu pkjksa ladk; lnL;ksa dks cpkus ds
mn~ns'; ls vKkr O;fDr }kjk muds dgus ls
Qsyk;k x;k gS] tks ekuuh; tfLVl Jh fln~nhdh
th dh tkap esa ,d vuqlwfpr tkfr ds O;fDr dks
^^lsD'ku 3 ,DV ua0 33 vkQ 1989 ^^izosU'ku vkQ
,V~ksflVht ,DV** ds rgr nks"kh ik, x;sA ml
vKkr bZ esy dh Nk;kizfr ekuuh; tfLVl Jh
fln~nhdh th dh tkap fjiksVZ dh dkih ,oa bZ esy
studentiitk@gmail.com vdkmaV ds ckn gksus
dh lwpuk ,oa leLr rF; esjs ikl miyO/k gS A
tkap ds nkSjku eSa ;s lHkh rF; tkap vf/kdkjh dks
miyc/k djk nwaxkA Jheku~ th ls fuosnu gS fd
QthZ rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr bZ&esy ,oa lEcfU/kr
O;fDr;ksa ds f[kykQ eqdnek ntZ djds vko';d
dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA**

Sir, 1-My name is Subramanyam
Sadrela and my appointment was made in
the Aerospace Department, IIT Kanpur on
28th December, 2017. 2- Before this, the
IIT Kanpur had advertised the special drive
6 All. Prof Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
583
for
recruitment
related
to
SC/ST/OBC/PWD category faculties in all
departments, and I had applied under the
drive. I have done my post graduation and
PhD from IIT Kanpur. 3-As a process of
the recruitment by IIT Kanpur, I was called
in October, 2017 to participate in a
seminar at the Aerospace Engineering
Department. During the seminar, Dr. Ishan
Sharma,
Chemical
Engineering
Department, made comment against me,
and while leading a group, he kept making
comments against me. Through statements,
he
declared
me
a
person
of
low
intelligence;
I
felt
frightened
and
disgraced. Despite this, I tried my best to
give replies to the questions, because I had
knowledge and speciality on the subject, of
which I had given my presentation at
national and international level. 4-Despite
attempt of Dr. Ishan Sharma to show me in
poor light, the Department and the
Institution
had
recommended
my
candidature. Thereafter, a committee of the
external specialists conducted, in this
respect, an examination on 26th January,
2017
and
recommended
for
my
appointment. After recommendation by
Chairman of the Board, appointment letter
was issued to me on 28th December, 2017.
I took charge on 1st January, 2018. 5-On
04.01.2018, immediately after I joined the
department,
Sri
Sanjay
Mittal
made
sarcastic and derogatory remarks against
me in a seminar that as the result of joining
of new faculty, the standards of the
department are not maintained properly.
Thereafter on 09.01.2018 Dr. Sanjay Mittal
sent an e-mail to all faculty members of the
Department of Aerospace Engineering
except me and Dr. Raghavendra, and he
convened a meeting of faculty. 6- Maximum
faculty members of the Department of
Aerospace
Engineering
were
present
during the meeting where discussion in
respect of my appointment held for more
than three hours. During the meeting, it has
been found that Dr. Sanjay Mittal, Dr.
Chandrashekar and Dr. Dabopam Das, all
the senior professors of the Department of
Aerospace
Engineering,
tried
to
convenience the junior professors to the
effect that my appointment is not suitable
for this department and I am mentally
ineligible also. 7- During it all, Dr. C.S.
Upadhaya initiated a movement to wrongly
present my educational certificates wherein
it has been stated that I am not eligible to
be appointed as Faculty. 8-Being vexed
with these things, on 12.1.2018 I intimated
my agony to the Director and Head of
Department through an e-mail that I and
my family have been subject to mental
torture by this propaganda and this is all
because I belong to the Scheduled Caste
Community. 9-Taking cognizance of my
application and on the advice of the Board
of
Governor
(BOG),
the
Director
constituted a committee (Fact Finding
Committee) that was directed to bring out
the following facts - (a) to establish
discrimination and torture against "me i.e.
Dr. Saidrala" (b) on finding it to be
correct, identification of these persons and
to establish steps taken by them. 10- Hardly
had the abetted propaganda by Dr.
Upadhyaya not stopped still when on
01.02.2018 Dr. Rajiv Shekar sent an e-mail
to all the Senators wherein it was written
that incident that occurred 10 years before
has reoccurred which has completely jolted
the educational foundation. He further
wrote that curse has again effected. I would
like to mention here that not only
Professors of IIT Kanpur, but also those of
other
educational
institutions
attend
Senators. Dr. Rajiv Shekhar has tried to
drag all those in this propaganda. 11- I
came to know about Dr. Rajeev Shekhar's
aforesaid e-mail and due to this, my family
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and I became upset. On 1.2.2018, I
requested permission to take this incident
to National SC/ST Commission through a
written-application
addressing
to
the
Director. 12- The committee (fact Finding
Committee) submitted its report before the
Director on 8.3.2018. In the enquiry, the
committee
found
me
right
on
my
appointment and held Dr. Ishan, Dr.
Sanjay Mittal, Dr. Rajeev Shekhar and Dr.
Chandrashekhar Upadhyay guilty for my
harassment
committed by
them. The
committee also recommended for action
under SC/ST Act. 13- Taking cognizance of
the aforesaid incident, the National SC/ST
Commission issued a notice to the Director
on 13.03.2018 and recommended him
individually to initiate a departmental
enquiry against those four professors in the
meeting with the complainant and head of
the department held in the commission on
10.4.2018 by taking cognizance of the
gravity of the whole incident. 15-10.4.2018,
hearing took place in chairmanship of
hon'ble chairman of the commission Dr.
Ram Shankar Katheria and on the same
day, the commission passed its order which
was handed over to the institution on 13.4.
2018. 16-Thereafter, the four faculty
members namely Dr. Sanjay Mittal, Dr.
Chandrashekhar Upadhyay, Dr. Ishan
Sharma
and
Dr.
Rajeev
Shekhar
approached Allahabad High Court and the
Court passed stay order against the
guidelines of the National Commission for
Scheduled Castes. 17- Even after the stay
order, it was allowed that the institution
itself may get the enquiry conducted on
these subjects. The charge to conduct
enquiry was handed over to the Hon'ble
Justice Siddiqui as an Enquiry Officer
through order No. IITK/DC-125/LC-43 on
05 E. 2018. One respected faculty member
(retired) was also appointed as an
Assistant to Justice Shri Siddiqui. 18On17.08.2018,
Hon'ble
Justice
Shri
Siddiqui submitted his enquiry report BOG
as an enclosure. In the report, the following
facts were mainly established. (A) The
procedure of my appointment in IIT was
found absolutely correct. (B) The four
faculty members namely Dr. Sanjay Mittal,
Dr. Chandrashekhar Upadhyay, Dr. Ishan
Sharma and Dr. Rajeev Shekhar were
found guilty of serious misconduct under
Conduct Rule (Schedule-B) rule 3 (a) and
(b) Under Status 13 (17) of IIT Status. (C)
The four faculty members namely Dr.
Sanjay
Mittal,
Dr.
Chandrashekhar
Upadhyay, Dr. Ishan Sharma and Dr.
Rajeev Shekhar were found guilty to
publicly mock at and harass the person
related to the Scheduled Caste under
Section 3 of A Act No.-33 of 1989. 19-It has
been learnt from the B.O.G meeting held on
06.09.2018 that due to pressure from two
faculty
representatives
namely
Dr.
Devopam Das and Dr. M.L.N Rao, only
CCS violation has been accepted while
offence under Sec. 3 of A Act No. 33 of
1989 " Prevention of atrocities Act" has
been rejected. 20- In the meantime, Dr.
Sadrela, De. A.K. Ghosh, IIT Kanpur
Director were summoned by National
Scheduled Caste Commission on 10.9.2018
in context of report by Hon'ble Justice
Siddhiqui At their New Delhi Office. In the
meeting held there, serious resentment was
expressed on the decision taken in
B.O.G.(IITK) as well as on the negation of
offence made under Sec. 3 of A Act No. 33
of 1989 "Prevention of Atrocities Act" and
commission again passed the directions.
21-All four accused persons again got
these directions stayed on 26.09.2018 vide
Writ Petition 32585/2018. 22-Prior to the
meeting of the members of BOG, in order
to
influence
the
BOG,
one
mail
dt:15.10.2018, by some unknown person,
through
the
e-mail
ID
-
6 All. Prof Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
studentiitk@gmail.com was sent to the
members in a large numbers, to show that I
(Dr. Sadrela) completed my Ph.D by
copying others. Further, it has also been
claimed in the said e-mail that this degree
of mine (Dr. Sadrela) of PhD should be
withdrawn (and which will cause me loose
my job). This mail ID is now not functional.
It shows that this e-mail was created only
in order to humiliate me. It has all been
done in order to establish that I belong to
the scheduled caste and that my mental
level is not adequate enough to teach in
I.I.T. It has hurt my self-respect and caused
damage to my position in society, and I had
to go through excessive mental depression.
I doubt that this e-mail has been
sent/spread by some unknown person under
the direction of those four faculty members
and in order to protect them, who were
found guilty by Hon'ble Justice Mr.
Siddiqui u/s 3 Act-33 of 1989 'Prevention of
Atrocities Act'. I have a copy of that
anonymous mail, a copy of the inquiry
report by Hon'ble Justice Siddiqui and the
information after the e-mail account
studentiitka@gmail.com (?) and all other
facts. I will provide all the relevant facts to
the inquiry officer during the inquiry.

You are hereby requested that a
case be lodged against the concerned
persons on the basis of the e-mail
containing false information, and necessary
action be taken up."

 (English Translation by Court)

5. A perusal of aforesaid report shows
that Informant Dr. Subramanyam Sadrela
stated that a Special Recruitment Drive was
conducted in the Aerospace Department of
IIT Kanpur for making recruitment of
SC/ST, OBC and other reserved category
candidates. Informant had completed his
Post Graduation and Ph.D., from IIT,
Kanpur itself. He applied for appointment
in Aerospace Department. He was called in
October, 2017 for interview. During
interview, Dr.Ishan Sharma, Mechanical
Engineering Department, IIT Kanpur led
group and made comments and taunts upon
Informant stating that he is a person of low
IQ.
Informant
fell
frightened
and
dishonored, still made attempt to reply the
questions put to him by Dr.Ishan Sharma
since he had good knowledge of subject as
he had represented at National and
International Forum. Despite Dr. Ishan
Sharma's comment, Department/Institution
recommended Informant's candidature for
appointment. On 26.12.2017, an Outside
Expert
examined
Informant
and
recommended
his
appointment.
Consequently,
Chairman
of
Board
approved candidature of Informant and
letter of appointment was issued to him on
28.12.2017.
Informant
joined
on
01.01.2018. Thereafter, in a meeting, Dr.
Sanjay Mittal made comments in a taunting
manner and ridiculed Informant stating that
due to engagement of new faculty member,
Department's standards have gone down.
On 09.01.2018, Dr. Sanjay Mittal sent an
E-mail to all faculty members in Aerospace
Engineering Department except Informant
and Dr. Raghvendra and called a meeting
on 10.01.2018. In the said meeting, matter
of appointment of Informant was discussed
for about three hours and Dr. Sanjay Mittal,
Dr. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay and
Dr.Dabopam Das all tried to explain to
Junior Professors that appointment of
Informant in the Department of Aerospace
was not justified and he was not suitable.
Dr. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay also
presented Informant's testimonials in a
wrongful manner and tried to explain that
he was not suitable for appointment as
Faculty Member. Informant got disturbed
and
expressed
his
predicament
and
embarrassment to Head of the Department
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
through an E-mail and said that he and his
family has suffered mental exploitation due
to malicious conversation and it is all since
Informant belongs to Scheduled Caste
community.

6. Taking note of the complaint, on
the advice of Board of Governors, a Fact
Finding Committee was constituted which
was
entrusted
to
find
out
alleged
discrimination,
and
harassment
of
petitioner; and identification of guilty
persons and also to find out misconduct, if
any committed and if so, by whom.

7. On 01.02.2018, Dr. Rajeev Shekhar
sent an E-mail stating that incident
occurred 10 years back has happened again.
Rumors and false conversation by Dr.
Rajeev Shekhar caused mental disturbance
to Informant and his family. Again,
Informant sent a letter to Director and seeks
permission to raise the matter in National
Commission
of
Scheduled
Castes
(hereinafter referred to as "NCSC"). Fact
Finding Committee submitted report on
08.03.2018
to
Director
and
found
appointment of Informant to be correct;
that Dr. Ishan Sharma, Dr. Sanjay Mittal,
Dr. Rajeev Shekhar and Dr. Chandra
Shekhar Upadhyay, guilty to suppression of
Informant,
and
recommended
action
against said persons under SC/ST Act.
Taking note of said incident, NCSC also
issued
a
notice
on
13.03.2018
and
summoned
them
in
Commission
on
10.04.2018. On the issue of Informant's
exploitation, a meeting was held by Board
of
Directors
on
19.03.2018
wherein
Departmental enquiry was recommended
against four erring Faculty Members.

8. NCSC heard the matter and
passed an order against four Faculty
Members who challenged the same
before Court and obtained stay order.

9. A retired Judge was appointed as
Enquiry Officer who submitted report
dated 17.08.2018 holding appointment of
Informant,
correct
and
prima
facie
holding four Faculty Members of guilty
of violating Rule 3(a) and (b) of Conduct
Rules (Schedule-B) framed under the
Statute 13(17) of IIT, Kanpur Statute and
also committing offence under Section 3
of Act No.33 of 1989. However, in the
Board
of
Governor's
meeting,
two
Faculty Members impressed upon that
four Faculty Members were guilty of
violating Conduct Rules only and not
offence
under
Act,
1989.
In
the
meantime, an unknown person forwarded
an E-mail wherein it was attempted to
show that Informant has completed
Doctorate by copying some others thesis
and it should be withdrawn. It appears
that said E-mail was forwarded just to
belittle Informant and this shows that
Informant being Members of Scheduled
Castes, is not upto mark to be a Faculty
Member of IIT, Kanpur. This all has
caused serious damage to self-respect and
social status of Informant and has caused
serious mental torture to Informant.

10. Having given anxious thoughts,
we find that basic grievance of Informant is
that he has not been given a good treatment
by
petitioners.
They
have
taunted,
commented and ridiculed him time to time.
He has not stated anywhere that whatever
has been done by petitioners is after
knowing it that he is a member of
Scheduled Caste, to insult or intimidate or
humiliate as such but what he has said that
certain acts and omissions have been done
by petitioners and according to Informant,
6 All. Prof Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
587
same has been done as Informant is a
member of Scheduled Caste.

11. In order to find out "whether
offence under the provisions wherein FIR
has been registered are made out or not",
we first proceed to consider "whether
offence under Section 3(2)(va) of Act, 1989
has been made out or not".

12. Section 3(2)(va) of Act, 1989 is
reproduced as under:-

"3(2)(va) commits any offence
specified in the Schedule, against a person
or property, knowing that such person is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs
to such member, shall be punishable with
such punishment as specified under the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such
offences and shall also be liable to fine."

13. The gravamen of Section 3(2)(va)
of Act, 1989 is pre information and
knowledge of accused that person being
offended is a member of a Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes or property
concern
belongs
to
such
member.
Therefore, it is not sufficient that offended
person is a member of scheduled castes or
property belongs to a member is a
scheduled castes but knowledge of offender
that such person is a Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes is the basic ingredient to
attract Section 3(2)(va) of Act, 1989.

14. In the entire complaint we have
reproduced above, we do not find even a
whisper
that
accused-petitioners
were
knowing that Informant/Complainant is a
member of Scheduled Castes and with this
knowledge,
they
committed
offence
specified in the Schedule.

15. Thus, the basic ingredient to
attract Section 3(2)(va) of Act, 1989 is not
present, hence, it cannot be said that
aforesaid provision is attracted even if
whatever stated in FIR is treated to be
correct. We further required counsel for
respondent-4 to show as to which offence
mentioned in the Schedule of Act, 1989 has
been committed by offenders i.e. accusedpetitioners but despite repeated query, Sri
T.P.Singh,
learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing for respondent-4 could not
referred to any section of IPC mentioned in
the Schedule of Act, 1989 which is said to
have attracted in the case in hand. He said
that it is Section 500 IPC which is attracted
but we find that Section 500 IPC is not one
of the provisions mentioned in Schedule of
Act, 1989, therefore, Section 3(2)(va) of
Act, 1989 is not at all attracted and it
cannot be said that even if what is alleged
in FIR is taken to be true, any offence
under Section 3(2)(va) of Act, 1989 is
made out.

16. Now, we come to Section 500
IPC. Section 500 IPC is an offence of
"defamation" as defined in Section 499
IPC.

17. Section 499 IPC provides as to
what is "defamation" and reads as under:-

"499. Defamation.--Whoever, by
words either spoken or intended to be
read,
or
by
signs
or
by
visible
representations, makes or publishes any
imputation
concerning
any
person
intending to harm, or knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is
said, except in the cases hereinafter
expected, to defame that person."
(Emphasis added)
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. There are four Explanations and
ten Exceptions in Section 499 IPC which I
have not quoted.

19. Explanations covers some shades
of the words, spoken or intended to be read
etc., which may amount to "defamation"
while exceptions give the illustrations of
what will not constitute "defamation". To
be more particular, Explanations-1, 2 and 3
provide certain aspects which would
amount to defamation and Explanation-4
explains
the
words
"will
harm
the
reputation of such person" which is a
necessary and integral part of Section 499
IPC so as to constitute defamation. Offence
of defamation, therefore, consists of three
essential
ingredients.
(i)
making
or
publishing an imputation concerning a
person; (ii) such imputation must have been
made by words either spoken or intended to
be read or by signs or by visible
representations;
and,
(iii)
the
said
imputation must have been made with the
intention of harming or with the knowledge
or having reason to believe that it will harm
the reputation of the person concerned.

20. Thus, to bring an offence under
Section 500 IPC, prosecution has to show,
(a) that an imputation was made consisting
of words spoken or written or intended to
be read or made by signs or by visible
representations; (b) that the imputation
concerned the complainant i.e. the person
defamed and the person who has come
forward qua complainant alleging that
defamation concerned him, are identical
persons; (c) that the accused made or
published the incriminating imputation;
and, (d) that the intention behind making
and publishing words causing harm to the
reputation of such person.

21. Offence punishable under Section
500 IPC, therefore, is to protect a
fundamental
right
of
a
person
i.e.
'reputation' which is part of right to
enjoyment of life and liberty and property
having an ancient origin as explained by
Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Bedi v.
Committee of Inquiry and another 1989
(1) SCC 494 wherein Court reproduced the
observations from D.F. Marion v. Davis
10 55 ALR 171 as under:-

"The right to enjoyment of a
private reputation, unassailed by malicious
slander is of ancient origin, and is
necessary to human society. A good
reputation is an element of personal
security,
and
is
protected
by
the
Constitution equally with the right to the
enjoyment of life, liberty and property. "
(emphasis added)

22. In Board of Trustees of the Port
of
Bombay
vs.
Dilipkumar
Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others
(1983) 1 SCC 124, Court said that "right to
reputation" is a facet of right to life of a
citizen under Article 21 of Constitution.

23. In Vishwanath S/o Sitaram
Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath
Agrawal 2012 (6) SCALE 190, Court
dealt with the aspect of "reputation"
though in a different context, and
said:-

"........reputation which is not
only the salt of life, but also the purest
treasure and the most precious perfume of
life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished
value this side of the grave. It is a revenue
generator for the present as well as for the
posterity. "

 (emphasis added)
6 All. Prof Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
589

24. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of
U.P. and Others 2013 (2) SCC 398, Court
said:-

"The term 'person' includes not
only the physical body and members but
also every bodily sense and personal
attribute among which is the reputation a
man has acquired. Reputation can also be
defined to be good name, the credit, honour
or character which is derived from a
favourable public opinion or esteem, and
character by report. The right to enjoyment
of a good reputation is a valuable privilege
of ancient origin and necessary to human
society. 'Reputation' is an element of
personal security and is protected by
Constitution equally with the right to
enjoyment of life, liberty and property.
Although 'character' and 'reputation' are
often used synonymously, but these terms
are distinguishable. 'Character' is what a
man is and 'reputation' is what he is
supposed to be in what people say he is.
'Character' depends on attributes possessed
and 'reputation' on attributes which others
believe one to possess. The former signifies
reality and the latter merely what is
accepted to be reality at present. "
(emphasis added)

25. Offence under Section 500 IPC,
therefore, covers a very important aspect
involving a person's right to life and liberty,
hence when a complaint is made that a
person's reputation has been jeopardized,
and Magistrate, if has taken cognizance in
the matter by initiating proceedings, Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
Constitution should not interfere lightly
unless a clear case of abuse of process of
law is made out. I, therefore, would
examine the matter in question, whether a
case of abuse of process has been made out
or not.

26. Comments or taunting of a person
in
respect
of
his
specialization
of
knowledge in a close door meeting i.e.
during the course of interview cannot be
said to be a publication of something which
affects the reputation of any person and
such observations or comments, in our
view, will not attract Section 500 IPC. This
situation, if accepted, may result in
everyday complaints against the member of
interview board or the persons performing
judicial
or
quasi
judicial
functions
whenever they make any observation with
regard to understanding or knowledge of
another person.

27. So far as publication of E-mail is
concerned, complaint itself shows that it
was sent by some unknown person and
there is nothing to show that E-mail was
sent by any of these petitioners and,
therefore, for the said E-mail, Section 500
IPC cannot be attracted against petitioners.

28. Now, we come to Section 66-D of
Amendment Act, 2008. Section 66-D
inserted in Act, 2000 which came into force
on 05.02.2009 i.e. the date on which it was
published in the Official Gazette. Section
66-D of Amendment Act, 2008 reads as
under:-

"66D Punishment for cheating
bypersonationby using computer resource---

Whoever,
by
means
of
any
communication device or computer resource
cheats by personation, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also
be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees."
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. It applies where there is any
cheating by personation but the entire
contents of FIR make no allegation of
cheating of Informant/Complainant by
personation, therefore, Section 66-D of
Amendment Act, 2008, ex facie has no
application.

30. We may also place on record that
Amendment Act, 2008 has been enforced with
effect from 27.10.2009 by notification issued by
Central Government under Section 1(2) of
Amendment Act, 2008.

31. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent-4 however, contended that in an
internationally
recognized
temple
of
a
professional education, the faculty members of
higher caste have ill-treated and ridiculed
colleague faculty member of outburst caste i.e.
Scheduled Castes, hence, in such a matter, this
Court should not interfere in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition under Article 226 and the matter
should be left for trial.

32. We do not find that the above
submission is correct for the reason that if no
offence is made out, even if what is stated in the
FIR is treated to be correct then no person can
be allowed to unnecessarily suffer the trauma of
criminal trial.

33. In view thereof, we are satisfied that no
offence under the sections in which report has
been registered are made out even if
allegations stated in FIR are taken to be
correct ex facie and that being so,
criminal proceedings initiated against
petitioners cannot be said to be justified.

34. In the result, writ petition is
allowed.