{"id":268521,"date":"2002-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002"},"modified":"2014-06-04T10:04:52","modified_gmt":"2014-06-04T04:34:52","slug":"c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 10\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. PACKIARAJ\n\nCriminal Original Petition No.6394 of 2001\n\nC.R.Irani\nEditor in chief\nStatesman House\n4,Chowranghee Square\nCalcutta 700 001                        .....  Petitioner\n\n\n-Vs-\n\nIndian Institute of Technology\nGuindy, Madras-36,\nrep. by its Registrar\nProfessor M.R.Pranesh                   .....   Respondent\n\n\nPRAYER:  Petition filed  to  call  for  the  records  and  quash  all  further\nproceedings against the petitioner in CC No.7715 of 2000 on the file of the IX\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Madras.\n\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.Ramasubramanian for\n                M\/s Ram and Ram\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.Vijayakumar for\n                M\/s.  Pais Lobo & Alvares\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        This  petition  has been filed by Mr.C.R.Irani, Editor in Chief of the
\nNews Paper “Statesman”, to quash the proceedings in CC No.7715 of 20 00 on the
\nfile of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.  The petitioner, who  is  the
\nEditor-in-Chief, has  been  prosecuted  along with two others Ms.  Jaya Menon,
\nCorrespondent and Mr.Sibi Thomas, Publisher of the said news  paper,  who  are
\nnot  before  this  court,  for  offence under Section 500, 501, 502 r\/w 34 and
\n120(b) of IPC<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
        2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        a)The complainant namely, the Indian Institute of  Technology,  Madras
\nhas  been maintaining a very high standard in technological education in India
\nand has acquired a name for its academic excellence through out the world  and
\nas  such,  a  publication was made in the newspaper “Statesman” dated 9.8.2000
\nunder the caption “Andhra Tribal  wins  battle  against  Indian  Institute  of
\nTechnology”.  The said publication reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
ANDHRA TRIBAL GIRL WINS BATTLE AGAINST IIT
\n‘TEACHER PUNISHED SUJEE TEPPAL FOR BEING TOO SMART’
\nChennai,Aug.8  –  A  tribal  girl  from Andhra Pradesh, Miss Sujee Teppal, won
\nadmission last week to the five-year “Dual Degree Programme”  for  B.Tech  and
\nM.Tech in the communcations engineering programme of IIT, Madras, after waging
\na bitter battle against the institute.\n<\/p>\n
        The  Periyar  Dravidar  Kazhagam,  an  offshoot  of Periyar’s Dravidar
\nKazhagam, accused the IIT of “deliberately” failing the girl in Physics  after
\nthe one year preparatory course for B.Tech.\n<\/p>\n
        Sujee  had reportedly scored brilliantly in Chemistry and Mathematics,
\nraising doubts about the evaluation of her Physics Paper.\n<\/p>\n
        Inquiries showed that she might have been deliberately failed  in  the
\npaper.   Highly  placed  sources  said  the Physics teacher “punished” her for
\nbeing too smart for him, using easier methods to solve problems.\n<\/p>\n
        The IIT director, Mr.R.Natarajan, is said to have conducted an inquiry
\ninto the matter, perhaps sensing that all was not  well  with  the  evaluation
\nprocess.  The institute was spurred into further action when the regional head
\nof  the  National  Commissioner for the Welfare of SC\/ST wrote a letter to the
\ndirector asking him to not to admit B.Tech  students  till  Sujee’s  case  was
\nsettled.\n<\/p>\n
        Meanwhile,  Sujee, unable to bear her agony, tried to kill herself and
\nwas admitted to Apollo Hospital here.  The PDK alleged that the girl attempted
\nsuicide even for a second time.\n<\/p>\n
        When contacted in her hostel room at the  IIT,  she  refused  to  talk
\nabout her  suicide attempts.  “I’m thrilled that I finally got what I wanted.”
\nshe said.\n<\/p>\n
        Her parents too were unwilling to talk to the media.   Sujee’s  father
\nMr.Surendra Babu, is a sales executive at an Agro company in Bhimavaram.\n<\/p>\n
        Mr.A.Sathyanarayana, assistant director of the National Commission for
\nSC\/ST  and in charge of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, told The Statesman:”I went
\nthrough Miss Teppal’s papers.  I was convinced  there  might  have  been  some
\ndiscrimination.   There could have been some mischief in the evaluation of her
\ntest papers for the preparatory course”.\n<\/p>\n
        Mr.Sathyanarayana,however, preferred gentle persuasion with  the  IIT,
\nrealising that  a  prolonged  legal  battle  would  achieve  little.  “The IIT
\ndirector was indeed magnanimous in giving the girl another chance,” he said.\n<\/p>\n
        Faced with chances of being dragged into a controversy, the institute,
\nquite unusually, put the girl and five others through  an  intensive  one-week
\ncourse.   While  three of them failed, Sujee sailed through, topping the list.
\nShe opted for the five year “Dual Degree Programme” in the much  sought  after
\ncommunications engineering course.\n<\/p>\n
        The  institute  has  claimed  it had resorted to the unusual procedure
\nonly because Sujee had made “tearful representation to the director”.  Denying
\nreports that he had been pressured by the Andhra Pradesh chief  minister  into
\nadmitting  the  girl,  Mr.Natarajan,  said:”We  have  a  tough and transparent
\nadmission procedure”.  Sujee belongs to the Kammara  tribe  of  Bhimavaram  in
\nAndra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
        The  Director  said  children  of at least 15 former IIT directors had
\nfailed to pass the JEE.\n<\/p>\n
        The PDK had put up posters all over the city, giving  details  of  the
\ncase  and  distributed  booklets alleging discrimination against Dalits by the
\nIIT.\n<\/p>\n
        The party alleged that the IIT, Madras, has  flouted  all  reservation
\nnorms while admitting students and selecting faculty members.\n<\/p>\n
        Mr.Natarajan refuted   the  allegation,  saying:    “We  are  strictly
\nfollowing all the constitutional provisions and the rules  laid  down  by  the
\nhuman  resources  development  ministry  and the procedures and operations are
\nbeing closely monitored and certified by parliamentary committee”.\n<\/p>\n
        Perhaps what made the matters worse for the IIT was  Sujee’s  academic
\nrecord.  She  was a meritorious student all through.  In the first year of her
\nIntermediate course, she had scored a centum in Physics and in the second  and
\nfinal  year  she  got  90.75  per cent Maths, Physics and Chemistry was 94 per
\ncent.\n<\/p>\n
        She had appeared for the Engineering and  Medical  Common  Engineering
\nTest  the  entrance  examination  in  Andhra Pradesh, standing first in the ST
\ncategory.”\n<\/p>\n
        b)The complainant further alleges that in the said news item,  Periyar
\nDravidar  Kazhagam,  an  off  shoot  of  Dravidar Kazhagam, accused the Indian
\nInstitute of Technology of deliberately failing the girl in Physics after  the
\none year  preparatory  course  in  B.Tech.    The  girl  had reportedly scored
\nbrilliantly in Chemistry and Mathematics, raising doubts about the  evaluation
\nof her  Physics  paper.   The paper also read that enquiry showed that she was
\ndeliberately failed in the Physics paper and highly placed sources  told  that
\nthe  Physics  teacher  punished  her for being too smart for him, using easier
\nmethods to solve problems.  It is further stated that  one  Mr.Sathyanarayana,
\nAssistant  Director for the National Commission for SC and ST and in charge of
\nTamil Nadu and Pondicherry  told  the  first  accused  “I  went  through  Miss
\nTeppal’s papers.    I was convinced there might have been some discrimination.
\nThere could have been some mischief in the evaluation of her test  papers  for
\nthe  preparatory  course.”  However Mr.Sathyanarayana has denied the same in a
\ncommunication to the Director of Indian Institute of  Technology  and  besides
\nthe  above  said  averments,  the report further states “Perhaps what made the
\nmatter worse for the Indian  Institute  of  Technology  was  Sujee’s  academic
\nrecord.”  “Meanwhile,  Sujee,  unable to bear her agony, tried to kill herself
\nand was admitted to Apollo Hospital here.   The  PDK  alleged  that  the  girl
\nattempted  suicide  even for a second time.” According to the complainant, the
\nsaid report is totally false and in spite of Sujee declining  to  confirm  the
\nsuicide  story,  publication  has  been  made  only with the sole intention of
\nlowering or tarnishing the  image  of  the  Indian  Institute  of  Technology.
\nFurther,  had the first respondent, who is the correspondent, made inquires in
\nthe institute before publishing the above said news item, he would have  known
\nthe true facts that Sujee had failed to qualify in the Joint Entrance Exam for
\nadmission  into the Indian Institute of Technology in the year 1999, on merits
\ndespite fixing the lower cut off marks for SC and ST students.   Therefore,  a
\nspecial   one  year  preparatory  course  was  given  in  Physics,  Chemistry,
\nMathematics to enable them to cope up with their course to B.Tech dual  degree
\nM.Tech programmes.    After  successfully  completing  it,  Sujee  joined  the
\nPreparatory course 1999 along with  22  others  and  that  in  February  2000,
\nSujee’s father was informed by the Co-ordinator of preparatory course that her
\nperformance  was not up to the mark in Physics in first term of the course and
\nshe must put in a great effect in that subject; that the father of Sujee  sent
\na  reply  to  the  Director, thanking him for the suggestions made and assured
\nthat his daughter would do well in future.  However, Sujee did not succeed  in
\nthe examinations.   The further contention of the complainant is that the said
\nnews items mentioned supra is totally false and has been made  recklessly  and
\nwithout  due  care  and caution that the statement will harm the reputation of
\nthe complainant and had made defamatory statements particularly, the head line
\nthat Teacher punished Sujee because she was too smart.  The  petitioner  being
\nthe  Editor-in-Chief,  without  verifying the truth or otherwise, had made the
\nimputation and hence is alleged to have  committed  offence  punishable  under
\nSections 500<\/a> r\/w 34 IPC<\/a>.  The magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint
\nand has served summons to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        3.The  petitioner,  who is the second accused in the case and has been
\ndescribed  as  Editor-in-Chief  of  “Statesman”  submits  that  he  being  the
\nEditor-in-Chief  cannot  be prosecuted for the said offence but it is only the
\neditor alone who is liable to be prosecuted.  The second contention is that  a
\nreading  of  the entire complaint would not disclose that the said publication
\naffected the reputation of the institution in the minds of the general public,
\nwhich is the essential ingredients to punish the publishers.\n<\/p>\n
        4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would first  submit  that  in
\nrespect  of  the ground that the Editor-in-Chief cannot be prosecuted but only
\nthe editor could be prosecuted would rely on Section 7<\/a> of  Press  Registration
\nand  Books  Act<\/a>  (herein  after  referred  to  as  ‘the  Act’), in which it is
\nmentioned that an editor of the newspaper whose name is printed as the  editor
\nto  that  publication  alone is liable to be prosecuted for any of the offence
\nfor such libellous publication.  In support of his contention, he  would  also
\nplace reliance on the decision reported in K.M.Mathew Vs.  State of Kerala and
\nanother  reported  in  (AIR  1992 Supreme Court 2206) in which their Lordships
\nhave stated that a Editor-in-Chief cannot be prosecuted, but  only  an  Editor
\ncould be prosecuted in terms of Section 7<\/a> of the Act.  They have held that the
\nprosecution  under  Section 7<\/a> of the Act could be launched only against person
\nwhose name is printed as Editor.  As required under Section 5(1)<\/a> of  the  said
\nAct there is a mandatory presumption that the person whose name is printed, is
\ndeemed  as  Editor  of  the entire portion of the newspaper or which a copy is
\nproduced.\n<\/p>\n
        5.The learned counsel also in fairness placed the latest  decision  of
\nthe Supreme  Court reported in K.M.Mathew Vs.  K.A.Abraham and others (2002(6)
\nScale 82) wherein the decision referred supra has been  considered  and  their
\nLordships  have  held  that  by Section 7<\/a> of the said Act, if a presumption is
\ncaused to Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper as Editor he shall  be
\nheld  to be the Editor in any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of that
\npublication and he shall be punished; and they have  also  held  that  if  the
\nManaging  Editor, Resident Editor or Chief Editor, who does not come under the
\ncategory mentioned under Section 7<\/a> of the said Act is to be  prosecuted,  then
\nthere  must  be enough material to indicate that the said publication has been
\nmade with  the  knowledge  of  the  above  mentioned  persons  and  they  were
\nresponsible for such publication.  If that is so, they can also be prosecuted.
\nHowever,  the  learned  counsel  would  submit that this does not apply to the
\nfacts of this case in so far as the complaint does not disclose that the  said
\npublication  has  been  made  with  the  knowledge  of the Editor-in-Chief and
\nconsequently this decision does not apply to the facts of the present case and
\ntherefore on this ground, the proceedings have to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
        6.The learned counsel  for  the  respondent  while  countenancing  the
\nargument of the petitioner would first submit that at the bottom of every page
\nof  the Newspaper, including the page where the above news item finds a place,
\nprinter’s name has been published and the name of Thiru.  C.R.Irani  has  been
\npublished titling  him as Editor-in-Chief.  There is no separate clause by the
\ndesignation Editor.  Therefore, for all  practical  purposes,  it  has  to  be
\nconstrued  that  presumption  under  Section  7<\/a> of the Act would apply to this
\nperson  as  he  is  the  person  named  in  the  end  of  the  news  item   as
\nEditor-in-Chief, in the absence of a column as Editor.\n<\/p>\n
        7.It  is worth going back again to the decision referred above wherein
\ntheir Lordships have clearly stated that presumption under Section 7<\/a> is on the
\neditor whose name is printed in the news item as Editor and he shall be liable
\nfor the prosecution.  In the present case, since Mr.Irani’s name finds a place
\nunder the caption Editor-in-Chief, in the absence  of  a  separate  clause  as
\nEditor, Irani is the one to be prosecuted.\n<\/p>\n
        8.the   learned   counsel  for  the  respondent  further  argued  that
\nimmediately after the said publication, notice was addressed  to  the  Editor,
\nStatesman,  Chowranjee  Square,  Esplanade, Culcutta-1 dated 30th August 2000,
\nindicating about the above said publication and the falsity of the same, among
\nother things.  A reply had been received by him through the Advocates  of  the
\npetitioner,  dated  9th September 2000, wherein reference has been made to the
\nletter addressed to the Editor and it is also mentioned that the same has been
\nsent on  the  instructions  of  the  Editor-in-Chief  and  Managing  Director.
\nTherefore,  it  has  to be construed that there is no post as Editor who could
\nhave  instructed  the  counsel,  but  every  thing  has  been  done   by   the
\nEditor-in-Chief   which  indicates  that  he  was  responsible  for  the  said
\npublication.  In continuation of the above said argument, the learned  counsel
\nfor  the  respondent  also drew my attention to the averments in the complaint
\nwherein at paragraph 5 it has been clearly  stated  that  the  said  libellous
\npublication  has  been  published  by the second and third accused, the second
\naccused being the petitioner herein, without verifying the truth or  otherwise
\nof  the  information  given  by the first accused had published the news item.
\nThe second accused (petitioner) has deliberately and intentionally  failed  to
\ncheck the  correctness  or  other  wise  of  the  news item.  Hence the second
\naccused (petitioner) is also equally responsible for the  publication  of  the
\nsaid defamatory item.  Therefore, this in my opinion clinches the issue beyond
\nany  pale of doubt that he could also be prosecuted and hence I am not able to
\naccept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in so  far  as
\nthis argument is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        9.Coming  to  the  ground  namely that the complaint does not disclose
\nimputation directly or indirectly in the estimation of others which lowers the
\nmoral or intellectual character of that person, in other  words,  the  learned
\ncounsel  would  argue  that the said publication has not affected the moral or
\nintellectual character of that person in  the  minds  of  the  right  thinking
\npeople.\n<\/p>\n
        10.I  am  afraid, I am not able to accept this contention, since there
\nis a specific averment in the complaint that the said publications are totally
\nfalse and had been  published  with  a  view  to  tarnish  the  image  of  the
\ninstitution  and  on  account  of  such  publication,  the reputation has been
\nlowered.  It is averred alleged that several persons rang up the Director  and
\nother  Senior  faculty  members  also wrote to him expressing their anguish on
\nreading the said report and there was  a  stir  in  the  campus.    Therefore,
\nnothing  traverses  beyond these averments which clearly establish that, prima
\nfacie there are materials to disclose that such an  imputation  has,  in  fact
\naffected the  reputation  of  the  institution.    However, it is open for the
\npetitioner to raise all the contentions and establish them in  the  course  of
\nthe trial.    With these observations, I feel that there are no merits in this
\npetition for quashing the proceedings.  The petition fails  and  the  same  is
\ndismissed.  Consequently, Crl.M.P.  No.2251 of 2001 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        11.It  is  represented  by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
\nthe petitioner is a permanent resident of Calcutta and the case is  posted  in
\nMadras  and  the  petitioner finds extremely difficult to attend and report on
\nall the hearings.  I find that it is a genuine request made by the counsel and
\nhence the learned Magistrate is directed not to insist on the presence of  the
\npetitioner  for  the  hearings except on the day when substance of the charges
\nshould be read over and answering 313 statement and on the date  of  judgment.
\nOn all other occasions, the presence of the petitioner will be condoned on the
\ncounsel filing a petition under Section 317<\/a> Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
INDEX:  Yes
\nWeb:  Yes
\ntar<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras<\/p>\n
2.-do-Through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
\nEgmore, Madras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. PACKIARAJ Criminal Original Petition No.6394 of 2001 C.R.Irani Editor in chief Statesman House 4,Chowranghee Square Calcutta 700 001 ….. Petitioner -Vs- Indian Institute of Technology Guindy, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-04T04:34:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-04T04:34:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2751,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002\",\"name\":\"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-04T04:34:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-04T04:34:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-04T04:34:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002"},"wordCount":2751,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002","name":"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-04T04:34:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-r-irani-vs-indian-institute-of-technology-on-10-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.R.Irani vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 10 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}