Imran Taj, a PhD scholar who went to France on a scholarship, has been implicated in a scandal after the guarantee he submitted as a surety was found to be counterfeit.

Following a scientific examination, the Federal Investigation Agency reported discrepancies in the signatures, prompting the Islamabad High Court to halt the Higher Education Commission’s (HEC) recovery of Rs25 million from the guarantor.

In its 12-page judgement, the IHC stated that the HEC could file criminal charges against the PhD scholar and relevant officials for using fraudulent documents to obtain the scholarship. The court ordered the HEC to impose “stricter conditions” for future scholarship programmes and directed it to implement reforms in its scholarship policy, including the issuance of new guidelines.

The judgement, authored by IHC judge Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, nullified a recovery suit judgement made by a civil judge in West Islamabad against a citizen, Abdul Waheed. It pertained to the recovery of €85,406 and Rs76,386 in favour of the HEC.

Taj applied for an overseas scholarship for his PhD on June 2, 2005, and entered into an agreement with the HEC on December 26, 2005. As part of the scholarship terms, he submitted a guarantee stating he would serve in Pakistan for four years after completing his studies. But he violated the agreement by failing to return to Pakistan after completing his degree in France.

Waheed submitted property documents as a guarantor but later declared the guarantee documents as fake, asserting that he had not signed them. The FIA was tasked with examining and comparing the signatures and on September 14, 2023, it reported discrepancies between Waheed’s signature and those on the documents submitted as guarantees.

According to the FIA, significant differences were found in the signatures, including variations in speed, fluency, pen pressure, and hesitation. The IHC noted that the trial court “failed” to verify the signatures on the documents despite the appellant’s denial.

Taj submitted “fraudulent documents” to the HEC, which did not verify them to prevent such fraud. The court ruled that the HEC lacked the authority to recover amounts from the appellant as a guarantor. But the commission can initiate criminal prosecution against Taj and relevant officials for the fraudulent use of documents.

To protect the federal government from such losses in the future, the court suggested implementing guidelines requiring guarantees for scholarships to be registered with the sub-registrar of the relevant district.

It stressed the need for transparency and suggested including photographs of the guarantor and witnesses on guarantee agreements. The HEC should “maintain comprehensive records of educational expenses for scholarship recipients.”

Furthermore, the court recommended establishing a dispute resolution unit to handle such issues before they reach the courts, thereby facilitating a smoother resolution process.