Today’s Times of India carries the latest expose by Manoj Mitta on Mashelkar. The previous ‘victim’ says Mashelkar is irresponsible, if not dishonest. I would like to know Shamnad Basheer’s comment.
Latest expose on Mashelkar
Further reading
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...
Dear Venkatesan,
Thanks for pointing this out to me. I know Dr Dutfield— he is a very respected academic in the UK and writes some fabulous stuff. Its unfortunate that his paper has been plagiarised. Certainly a far more serious charge than the earlier one –which I didn’t think was “plagiarism” anyway, not least because I had made a submission to the Committee for the very purpose of hoping that the Committee would rely on it. Secondly, the committee had included all that they “borrowed” from me in an Annexure to the Report, indicating indirectly that I was the source. Thirdly, what the Committee borrowed were mere conclusions. Given these circumstances, I’m not sure if you could call it “plagiarism”, which somehow connotes a calculated move to hide your source and pass stuff as your own. And given the allegation that the Committee sold out to Western multinational firms, I think a “plagiarism” charge would indicate that they cleverly hid their source since they were trying to further the interests of these firms. Which is why I think some people are very keen on labelling this as “plagiarism”. I would put it down to “sloppy” drafting–not expected of a Committee with so many reputed members.