Delhi court orders FIR against two DU professors over research publication fraud

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has directed the registration of an FIR against three persons, including two associate professors affiliated with the University of Delhi, over allegations of cheating, forgery and supplying fake research publication certificates.

Hearing a complaint filed by former Bharati College assistant professor Ankita Kilsen, Judicial Magistrate Gaurav Katariya said the allegations disclosed prima facie cognisable offences requiring a detailed police investigation.

In an order dated July 1, the court said, "What makes an act criminally liable is the presence of a fraudulent intention behind it. In this case, such an intention appears evident from the very outset. The alleged making of a false document…. points to a dishonest and fraudulent state of mind on the part of all three accused."

The court directed the Station Head Officer (SHO) of Shalimar Bagh police station to register an FIR based on the complaint filed on November 5, 2024, and submit a compliance report within 30 days.

The accused named in the complaint are Sanjeev Kumar, who allegedly posed as a senior medical officer at AIIMS, associate professor at Dyal Singh College Pramod Kumar, and associate professor at Bharati College Luke Khanna.

Also read Delhi University’s MAMC, UCMS draw NEET toppers but offer dead computers, lagging wi-fi, and delayed degrees

Persuaded to pay Rs 1 lakh, says complainant

According to the complaint, Sanjeev Kumar introduced the complainant to the two professors in 2021 on the assurance that they would help her secure an assistant professor's position. The complainant alleged that the two professors persuaded her to pay Rs 1 lakh in cash as publication charges and travel expenses, and collected her original research papers, promising to publish them in reputed academic journals.

She claimed that photocopies of three purportedly published research papers and publication certificates were later handed over to her, which she relied upon while applying for teaching positions. The complainant was appointed as an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Bharati College in November 2023. However, in August 2024, the college informed her that an RTI inquiry had revealed the research publications submitted by her were allegedly fake.

She was later served a showcause notice and her services were terminated in October 2024 after an inquiry committee concluded that the three publications were not genuine. The complainant further alleged that one of the accused later demanded Rs 25 lakh to "settle" the matter and ensure that she retained her job. She was represented by advocate Pardeep Khatri, assisted by advocate Pranjal Bhaskar.

Also read DU CSAS UG 2026 admission schedule out; phase 2 registration starts tomorrow

Report filed by police

An action taken report filed by the police had earlier termed the dispute civil in nature and stated that no cognisable offence was made out. Rejecting the police's conclusion, the court held that the material placed on record disclosed a prima facie case warranting investigation. "The supply and use of what are alleged to be forged certificates of publication to secure a government appointment constitutes a prima facie case of making a false document and forgery, which are cognisable offences," the court said.

It further said that the alleged misrepresentation by the first accused and the subsequent supply of fake journal publications and certificates prima facie satisfied the ingredients of cheating.

The court said police investigation was necessary as forensic examination of the alleged forged publication certificates, verification from the concerned universities and publishers, examination of electronic evidence including WhatsApp chats, call records and a laptop allegedly used to submit the applications, and tracing of the financial trail of the alleged Rs 1 lakh payment could not be effectively carried out by a private complainant.

The court also said investigation was required to ascertain whether other job-seeking candidates had similarly fallen victim to an alleged organised racket. The court clarified that registration of the FIR did not automatically warrant the arrest of any accused and directed the investigating agency to act strictly in accordance with law and the Supreme Court's guidelines on arrest.