According to a Legally India report, former NLUO Cuttack vice chancellor (VC) Dr Chandra Krishnamurthy has been accused by teachers of Pondicherry University – which she heads since 2013 – of plagiarising a book she authored.

Dr Chandra Krishnamurthy pondicherry university head accused of plagiarism, NLUO VC
Dr. Chandra Krishnamurthy

Below are the excerpts from the Indian Express’ report published here:

“Following The Indian Express report that documents showed Pondicherry University Vice-Chancellor Chandra Krishnamurthy has plagiarised most of the book she mentioned in her CV, the Pondicherry University Teachers’ Association (PUTA) has sent a letter to Union Human Resource Development Minister Smriti Irani seeking her immediate removal and a probe into her academic credentials.

The Indian Express had reported on Saturday that Krishnamurthy appeared to have plagiarised most parts in one book by her, Legal Education in India (2009 and 2011), mentioned in her CV. Five out of eight chapters and the preface appear to be verbatim copies of papers published by eminent legal scholars. Two other books mentioned in her CV may have never been published at all.”



Get Lawctopus' posts in your inbox!


  1. 1. At quite a few places there are inconsistencies viz:
    a. in the name of the court which has decided the case, e.g.
    i. Supreme Court at p. 32 and Kerala High Court at p. 384 in A. M. Patroni vs. E. C. Kesavan with the same citation viz AIR b 1965 Ker 75
    ii. Supreme Court at pp.105 & 115 and Delhi High Court in Arya Samaj Ed. Trust, Delhi with the citation as AIR 1976 Del 207
    iii. at pp.109, 116, 149 Supreme Court or Delhi High Court in D. A. V. College Julundhar (these pages even do not contain the full citation),
    b. in the citation AIR 1976 Mad 214 at p. 274 or AIR 1971 Mad 440 at p. 65( here you have referred to the Supreme Court) & 543 in the case of Director of School Ed. Tamil Nadu Govt., & what is the correct citation
    c. in name the of the respondent in Sidharajbhai case (AIR 1963 SC 540) whether it is State of Bombay (p 62) or State of Gujarat (p 253),
    d. in reference to p. no. 1644 in the quotation from Azeez Basha case on p. 155 & 542,
    e. in reference to p. 1644 in the quotation from S. K. Patro’s case at p. 158 & p. 546.
    f. in title on p. 91 and conclusion on p.109,
    2. At quite a few places there are incomplete sentences/ missing material, e.g.
    a. Last but second line reg.” the following explanation” on p. 110 (whose explanation you mean here?),
    b. Last but one line on p. 116 (what is pointed out?),
    c. On pp. 117 & 133 reg. facts (where are the facts?),
    d. On p. 119 in the sentence “it was argued vehemently” (before whom?),
    e. On line 9th on p. 136 whether Bhatinda or Jullundhar,
    f. On line 16th on p. 177 (which is the court?).
    3. At quite a few places there are some statements or facts without any contextual references
    a. At p. 24 reg. resolution of 1-7- 70,
    b. D. A. V. College, Jullundhar as simply D. A. V College at p.25,
    4. At quite a few places lengthy facts have been given which could have been easily summarized, e.g. pp. 23-24, 93-99, 168-71, 174-77, etc.,
    5. At quite a few places, there are inaccuracies reg.
    a. facts such as whether the college was established by Bengalis (p. 29) or Marwaris (p. 131) in the Ramani Kanta Bose case,
    b. in the spellings of proper nouns such as Jullundur (p. 105), Jullundur (p.106), Jullundhar (p. 109), Pannalal (p. 26) Panna Lal (p. 545)
    6. At quite a few places, there are no references to page no. e.g. Geeta Rahasya on p. 79, Chambers and Random Dictionaries on p. 125, etc.
    7. At quite a few places, the footnotes are appearing either on the previous page or on the subsequent page/s.
    8. On p. 116, there is a reference to two cases without any discussion on them.
    9. Names of the various dictionaries and some authorities though referred to, but have not been included in the Bibliography.
    10. There are some cases referred to, but not included in the List of Cases.e.g. Bhagwan Koer vs. J. C. Bose & Sheeokuarbai vs. Jeoraj at p.114, Smt. Champak at p. 285, State of Gujarat vs. Shri K. R. Mudholakar at p. 310, 330, Yunus Ali Shah vs. Mohammed Abdul Kalaam AIR 1976 Mad 214 at p. 397, Wealth Tax Commissioner vs. Champa Kumari at p.. 112 W. Proost & Ors. v/s. State of Bihar at p. 207, 302
    11. There is a reference to the “teachings of Shri Aurbindo”s on p.150, but there is neither any discussion on it, nor any citation to that effect,
    12. In spite of the case of Sant Nirankari Mandal being discussed within a space of 14 pages (pp. 119-133) of the same Chapter, no cross-references are given which would have otherwise made it easier for a reader.
    13. At quite a few places you have put the cart before the horse by first giving your views or the judicial pronouncements of the case and thereafter given the facts or jumbled up the various cases in between a given case, e.g. while discussing the case of Azeez Basha (Aligarh Muslim University) case upto p. 173 there are references to Principal R. P. Nath’s case and Pannalal Bharatiya’s case and again the discussion on Azeez Basha case and thereafter giving your views, you have referred to N. Parmeshwar Kurup’s case at p. 178,
    Interested person may confirm the above mistakes, inconsistencies, etc. from her Ph.D. copy of which is in the Mumbai Library. This on record and which cannot be denied by her.

  2. There are lot of grammatical and spelling mistakes in her Ph.D. thesis and she kept quotations in complete and there were lot of other mistakes in it. One has to go through her guide’s letter in this regard pointing out all these,
    I have not done what you think.

  3. A specialist in law cannot plead ignorance of the law. Plagarism is a crime and when a plagarized book is used to procure the position of a Vice Chancellor of a Central University, a fraud is committed and the person must be dealt with under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. The irony is that Legal Education in India authored by this Chnada Krishnamurthy turns out to be an illegal act which should result in her removal as Vice Chancellor.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here