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
Summary: In Murti Devi & Anr. v Balkar Singh, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court denied maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship after considering her male-partner’s conviction for...
Summary: This article analyses a recent High Court order quashing a rape complaint and imposing punitive directions against the complainant. It examines how the Court departs from settled limits on...
Summary: In this article, the author critically examines the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on state obligations concerning climate change, unpacking its doctrinal...
This blog examines whether ‘Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence’ qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30 in light of the Supreme Court’s AMU judgment. Applying the...
Summary: The persistent intrusion of work into personal time not only erodes an individual’s temporal boundaries, but also puts to test the inadequacies of the existing labour safeguards...
Summary: This article examines the discriminatory framework of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which grants maternity leave to adoptive mothers only when the adopted child is below three months of...
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.