In a case brought by a Dalit faculty member of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur against four senior academics, who were accused of engaging in caste harassment, the Supreme Court recently took a conciliation stance. 

The Court recommended that the Chairman of the Board of Governors invite the complainant Subrahmanyam Saderla and the four accused professors Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, Ishan Sharma, Rajiv Shekhar, and Sanjay Mittal for talks after observing that the accusations and denials harm the reputation of the prestigious institution.

Subrahmanyam Saderla filed an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to dismiss the FIR he filed against his coworkers over alleged caste-based discrimination. The appeal was being heard by a bench made up of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari. 

The bench dismissed the appeal without interfering with the High Court's ruling and made the following observation:

“We feel that the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an impediment to restoration of normalcy and bringing cordiality back between the appellant and the respondents in their professional and personal capacities.

We, therefore, at this stage, are not inclined to continue with these proceedings and deem it appropriate to dispose of the same, with a recommendation to the chairman of the Board of Governors to invite the appellant and all the four respondents together and ensure that there are no pending misunderstandings or misgivings between them so as to guarantee professionalism and an ideal academic atmosphere in the institution.”

When ruling on the appeal, the bench noted that the Dalit academician had been forced to file a police report due to the "unfortunate episode" in which four senior professors allegedly "hurt the sentiments, prestige, and dignity" of the academician and criticised the originality of his doctoral thesis. 

A top institute's faculty members must behave themselves in a "exemplary" manner since students look up to them, and the bench stressed that both the respondents and the appellant had a duty to "ensure that none of their activities degraded or demeaned the institution."

"The attribution of allegations and counter-allegations damages the reputation of individuals as well as the institution. We, therefore, impress upon them to ensure that they work together as a team in the best interests of the institution and their students, and do not allow any unfortunate and untoward incidents to occur which might hurt the sentiments, feelings, respect and dignity of each other", the bench observed.

Saderla, who began working in the institute's department of aerospace engineering on January 1 of this year, lodged a grievance with the administration not long after, charging his coworkers Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, Ishan Sharma, Rajiv Shekhar, and Sanjay Mittal with harassment and caste-based discrimination. The IIT Kanpur administration was instructed to file a complaint against all four in accordance with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after a three-member panel headed by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes purportedly upheld these accusations. However, in the same year, the Allahabad High Court stopped the criminal case against them, citing, among alia, that giving such a direction was within the scope of the commission’s authority.

The apex court bench noted, “There is no remaining doubt regarding the genuineness of the PhD thesis, and the degree that was awarded to the appellant. His dedication, hard work and deep research on the subject stand duly recognised.”

Case Title: Subrahmanyam Saderla v. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay 
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3663 of 2020

Read the Complete Order

Appearance of the Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Ashok K. Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR
Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Ikshita Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kapil Raghav, Adv.
Mr. Dishant Bhati, Adv.
Ms. Tanya, Adv.                   

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Avneesh Tripathy, Adv.
Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR
Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR