Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for Sampath contended that the allegation by the defendants was that he had plagiarised despite the fact that his work has cited sources.
“I am the biographer of VD Savarkar. The sum and substance of allegation against me is that I have plagiarised but I have cited everybody,” Awasthi said.
The Bench said that the plaintiff has to show that he has not plagiarised.
“You have to show me whether you have plagiarised or not,” the judge said.
“This letter has very conveniently omitted the fact that I have cited the sources and that it was a speech not an article,” Awasthi replied.
“First allegation is that you have plagiarised the work of Mr Chaturvedi and then Mr Bakhle right,” the Bench queried.
“Yes, I have given extensive footnotes for all this in my book,” Awasti replied.
“My submission is that I have cited all the professors and I have very clearly noted the essay from which the paragraphs have been extracted. I have cited everybody. Ultimately as a scholar the only capital I have is my reputation,” Awasthi maintained.
“You are aggrieved by the letter as well as the tweets,” the Bench asked.
“Yes, the letter is the reason for the tweets. I will be an academic pariah if this is allowed,” Awasthi contended.
Advocate Jawahar Raja appearing for one of the defendants said that sentences have been lifted verbatim from works cited and in such cases mere giving citations will not be sufficient.
“He has referenced some of the articles but when you borrow the entire idea that is not enough. Sentences have been lifted verbatim. My concern is that the issue of reputation but it also goes to heart of plagiarism. The questions is that are these citations enough,” Raja asked.
The Court the asked whether the letter was published anywhere.
Awasthi said that it has been put up on Twitter.
Senior Counsel Sajan Poovayya appearing for Twitter said that the social media platform is willing to pull down the tweets which has put up the letter.
“I cannot have any objection to grant of the prayer. It says the letter have to be taken down, it can be done,” he said.
However, he added that tweeting and commenting about the letter is not something which the intermediary can interfere with.
“As far as the tweeting and commenting of the letter is concerned I cannnot to anything. It is not for intermediary to get involved in that,” Poovayya said.
The Court after considering the balance of convenience passed an ad-interim order in favour of Sampath.
Source: Barandbench
