New Delhi (PTI): Courts seem to have forgotten the basic principle of grant or refusal of bail, former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur has said, and termed as "most unfortunate" the unwillingness of the judiciary to see through the designs of probe agencies like filing incomplete charge sheets and not providing documents just to keep accused in jail.

Observing that the judiciary needs to wake up to the realities of life, the former apex court judge said in an interview with PTI though it is very difficult to allege political vendetta in every corruption case involving politicians, suspicions arise when investigation is dropped if the suspect changes loyalties.

In response to a query on denial of bail to AAP leader Manish Sisodia, Justice Lokur said, "Generally speaking, the courts seem to have forgotten the basic principles of grant or refusal of bail. Nowadays, if a person is arrested, you can be rest assured that he will be in prison for a few months at least.

"The police first arrest the person, then start a serious investigation. An incomplete charge sheet is filed followed by a supplementary charge sheet and documents are not furnished. This is most unfortunate and what is troubling is that some courts are not willing to see through this."

The judiciary needs to wake up to the realities of life as law books do not tell the whole story, Lokur said in response to a question as to how the judiciary should approach the issue of alleged misuse of investigative agencies by the government of the day both at the Centre and in states.

The former judge said the basic principles have been laid down by the apex court in several judgments for the exercise of discretionary power in bail matters.

"The problem is that some courts do not apply these basic principles, although they know them. The question is, why?" he said.

The Supreme Court on October 30 denied bail to former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the corruption and money laundering cases related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. He was arrested by the CBI on February 26.

Mincing no words about the trend of rising number of corruption cases lodged by government agencies against political adversaries in recent years, Justice Lokur said though such things are not new, the problem is the trajectory of probe against suspects if they change political loyalties.

"Corruption cases against some politicians are not new. There are other criminal cases against some politicians. It is difficult to allege political vendetta in all cases, but there may be some truth in some cases. The troubling aspect of all this is that after investigations start and the suspect changes loyalties, the investigation is dropped. That gives rise to grave suspicion of political vendetta," he told PTI in an interview via e-mail.

The former apex court judge hailed the present collegium system of appointment of judges in the higher judiciary and said it is the best available method.

"I have repeatedly been saying that the collegium system is the best available method of appointment of judges, but it needs some changes. This needs discussion. One important change is that the opacity of the government has to go. The government is more opaque than the collegiums," Justice Lokur said.

Justice Lokur was elevated to the Supreme Court as a judge on June 4, 2012 and demitted office on December 30, 2018.

Justice Lokur, as the apex court judge, dealt with cases on different aspects of law -- constitutional law, juvenile justice and Alternate Dispute Redressal mechanism, besides playing an active role in the pursuit of judicial reforms -- computerisation of courts, judicial education, legal aid and legal services.

He was a part of the bench which adjudicated a writ petition on privacy and identity of victims of sexual harassment where the court took the view that privacy and reputation of victims should be protected and issued special directives to that end.

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



New Delhi: A Noida-based private University, Galgotias has come under severe criticism after allegedly showcasing a china-made robotic dog at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi.

Social media users accused the university of purchasing a commercial robot from China and presenting it as its own creation at the summit.

Reports claimed that the university showcased the Unitree Go2 robotic dog, an AI-powered device available on Chinese platforms for Rs 2–3 lakh, under the name “Orion” during the event in New Delhi.

“So Galgotia university purchased a commercially available robot worth Rs 2.5 lakhs, called it their own and passed it off in the Delhi AI Summit as a part of their 350 crore AI ecosystem..I literally have no words left,” wrote ‘X’ user Roshan Rai, sharing a video in which a DD News reporter interviewed a university official about the robotic dog.

The viral post claimed that the robot closely resembles Unitree Go2, a quadruped robotic dog developed by Chinese company Unitree Robotics.

Screenshots attached to the post compared the robot displayed at the summit with the Unitree Go2 listing, priced at roughly 2,800 dollars (around Rs 2.3–2.5 lakhs).

According Unitree Robotics, The Unitree Go2 is widely used as a programmable quadruped robot for research, education, inspection, and development purposes, and is a common learning platform in universities and robotics labs worldwide.

Several users reiterated the claim.

Government of India funds for filing patents

Meanwhile, concerns were raised about alleged misuse of government funds.

User @sky_phd highlighted, “Galgotias University is once again in the spotlight. Under the guise of research and innovation, they are raking in plenty of money.”

The user claimed that the university took money under government funds, and wrote, “The Government of India provides incentive funding of up to five lakh rupees for filing patents.”

“To understand the patent filing process and the games being played with it, take a look at the list of top Indian institutions filing patents. All the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) together file only 803 patents, while institutions like Lovely Professional University, Jain Deemed-to-be University, Galgotias University, and Teerthanker Mahaveer University have filed more than a thousand patents each,” the user wrote, sharing a chart of patent filings by these universities.

“The basic international patent filing fee is $285–400. Through patent filings alone, these institutions are reportedly earning more than fifty crore rupees annually. However, while these universities file patents, they often do not pursue them further, and most patents ultimately do not get granted. This inflates filing numbers but does not reflect real innovation or recognized intellectual property,” the user added.

Another user pointed out about the selection criteria of the summit. The user questioned, “What exactly was the selection criteria for participation in this AI summit? .”

“Platforms meant to showcase India’s innovation should represent genuine research, original ideas, and credible institutions. So how did Galgotias University qualify to display a Chinese-made robot and present it as its own “innovation”? If true, this isn’t just embarrassing, it undermines the credibility of the entire summit and of India’s growing tech ecosystem. At a time when India is trying to position itself as a global AI and deep-tech leader, showcasing repackaged imports as indigenous innovation only damages trust. If we want the world to take India’s AI ambitions seriously, transparency and authenticity must come first,” the user added.

 

University clarifies after backlash

In response to the criticism, Galgotias University issued a clarification, stating that it “never claimed to have built the device” and that the robot was procured from a Chinese manufacturer for academic purposes.

“Let us be clear, Galgotias has not built this robodog, nor have we claimed to do so. What we are building are minds that will soon design, engineer, and manufacture such technologies in Bharat," the university said.

The university in its statement also pointed out that the Unitree Go2 is being used as a learning tool for students.

“From the US to China and Singapore, we bring advanced technologies to campus because exposure creates vision, and vision creates creators. The robodog is actively being used by students to test capabilities and explore real-world applications,” the university added.

University professor claims “it's developed by the Center of Excellence at the Galgotias University.”

In another video captured by DD News, a reporter showcased the Galgotias University pavilion at the India AI Impact Summit 2026.

At the pavilion, the reporter spoke with the university professor about the technology on display.

The professor introduced the robot, saying, “This is Orion. You need to meet Orion. It has been developed by the Center of Excellence at Galgotias University.”

She added, “I would also like to brief you about Galgotias University. We are the first private university investing more than Rs 350 crore in artificial intelligence and have a dedicated data science and AI lab on campus.”

“Orion has been developed by our Center of Excellence. It can take all shapes and sizes and is quite playful. It can perform small tasks such as surveillance and monitoring. It can even execute movements like moonwalks and somersaults,” she explained.

She also claimed that, “This is India’s first iOS lab in North India at a university, giving our students hands-on experience with cutting-edge technology.”

Reacting to the video social media users ridiculed the 350 cr rupees investment compared to the china made robo dog.

Past Controversies of the University

This is not the first time the university is in controversy. In May 2024, during the Lok Sabha elections, a video went viral showing students protesting outside the Congress headquarters in New Delhi against the party’s manifesto. The footage, captured by Aaj Tak, showed students struggling to articulate the purpose of their protest, raising questions about the demonstration’s intent.

Earlier, in 2017, students protested against the university management after being barred from appearing in exams due to low attendance, with allegations that fines were requested to allow attendance, a claim denied by the administration.