By July of last year, NUJS Kolkata’s interim administration had unilaterally shut down its distance learning certificate courses contractually provided by all third parties.
This resulted in one student approaching the Calcutta high court, which chastised NUJS for its decision leading to confusion about the status of already-enrolled students.
Distance education company iPleaders, set up by NUJS Kolkata graduates Abhyudaya Agarwal and Ramanuj Mukherjee, which was running 11 courses for NUJS, was the hardest hit by the ban.
iPleaders has reached out to us a while ago with a detailed statement arguing that its online courses were never illegal, and that the onus was on whoever alleges illegality having to provide such proof.
2016-18 NUJS Student Juridical Association (SJA) president Arjun Agarwal, who has since graduated from NUJS, has long claimed the opposite, which was later accepted by NUJS’ academic and executive councils. He had also written a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) about this in March.
We have allowed both sides responses and counter-responses to the respective arguments (with Arjun Agarwal responding in a purely personal capacity), and have published the exchange below (due warning, the full documents of their arguments, included below this article, are quite lengthy).
Disclosures: iPleaders had been an advertiser on Legally India several years ago.
iPleaders arguments summarised
In summary, the iPleaders’ case is that its online courses with NUJS were not illegal on the ground of non-recognition, and that no legal provisions have been presented that such courses are illegal. UGC had specifically regulated all kinds of online courses through new regulations in 2018, by when new admissions to the courses were already discontinued, it argued.
iPleaders has provided the following summary of its position:
- UGC started regulating kinds of online courses through regulations issued in 2018 (applicable from 4th July). By then, admissions in all online courses conducted with the assistance of iPleaders had stopped. These regulations are prospectively applicable, and cannot therefore impact the completion of courses of ongoing students or despatch of certificates to students who had already completed the courses by then. No students were admitted once the regulations were in force.
- Until 2018 regulations were issued, non-recognition by UGC guidelines only implied that the degrees granted without such recognition are not valid for Central Government recruitment purposes. It does not imply illegality or a prohibition from launching and conducting courses through online mode. This was the case with all the other online courses being offered by India, including by various institutions of eminence as UGC gave no recognition for any online courses in absence of a governing legislation.
- NUJS, being a statutory university, was empowered by Section 5 of the WBNUJS Act, 1999, which is a law passed by the West Bengal Government, to run its own certificate and diploma courses without requiring any additional approvals from IGNOU / UGC unless there was a clear provision to the contrary in another instrument.
- NUJS had also applied for recognition of its online courses under the IGNOU Distance Education Council’s (DEC) Guidelines in 2014-2015, which were applicable at that point in time. However, no action was taken on NUJS’ application by UGC. UGC has itself admitted that it did not recognise any new institutions as distance education providers between 2013 and 2017.
- The outright prohibition by specified UGC through its 2016 letters that Arjun Agarwal cites was not applicable to NUJS, as it was applicable only to universities recognized by UGC for offering distance courses which conducted online courses (the letter was specifically addressed to these universities), or to universities which were not recognised by UGC but misled interested applicants to believe that they are so recognised by UGC. NUJS’ online courses were not recognized by UGC and NUJS did not mislead applicants about non-recognition of its online courses, and rather specifically informed applicants through website and admission forms that there was no UGC recognition and the consequences thereof.
- This position is agreed upon by UGC as well as all universities including IIMs and IITs and a number of central universities that offered online courses in large numbers in last 10 years. UGC never gave permission to any of these institutions or courses either, but they were successfully run and UGC has never objected to the same. UGC simply did not have any legal instrument under which it could regulate or prohibit any online course in the first place, until in July 2018 when such instrument was legislated. In absence of any clear provision of law that prevented NUJS from offering online courses without UGC recognition, ill informed persons such as Arjun Agarwal are trying to point at disparate instruments trying to claim that UGC prohibited NUJS from offering online courses without UGC recognition, which is absolutely unjustifiable.
- So far NUJS EC has given no opportunity to either students of the online courses or iPleaders to present its side of the case and the same has been systematically prevented. iPleaders is appealing that there must be an independent inquiry set up before which students of the courses affected as well as iPleaders should be given an opportunity to be heard.
Counter-case summary of Arjun Agarwal
In his rebuttals, Arjun Agarwal categorically opposed iPleaders’s contentions, relying primarily on the Supreme Court of India’s 2009 decision in Annamalai University vs. Secretary of Government, Information and Tourism Department & Ors.
Explaining his counter-position in summary, responding to each of iPleaders’ points above, Arjun Agarwal explained:
On #3: All guidelines/ regulations as prescribed by the UGC are mandatorily binding on all Universities, including NUJS, as per Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Annamalai. The 2006 DEC Guidelines, as enforced by the erstwhile IGNOU DEC and later the UGC DEB, are binding in view of an express stipulation in the DEC Guidelines as well as Punjab & Haryana andSikkim High Courts’ cases. The Punjab & Haryana High Court case specifically confirms the applicability of DEC Guidelines to statutory universities and further holds that awarding certification in violation of DEC Guidelines is an illegal act. While NUJS had UGC affiliation to run its regular undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral programmes, NUJS never had any approvals for distance education courses, thereby making all such courses illegal.
On #1, 2 and 5: The UGC circular dated 06.10.2016 unequivocally clarifies that no online courses are to be run till the notification of relevant regulations by UGC. Such notification of t took place only in July 2018, well after iPleaders’ courses were shut down by the 32nd AC in May 2018. Admittedly, the said UGC circular was not marked specifically to NUJS since NUJS never had the requisite approvals for even the otherwise allowed offline courses. In effect, iPleaders is arguing that NUJS could exempt ‘itself’ from the mandatory applicability of a blanket prohibition against all online courses applicable to all Universities by simply not complying with the DEC Guidelines with respect to its offline courses. No one can benefit from their own wrong. Annamalai clarifies that any relaxation is not possible for “basic things necessary for conferment of a degree”, much less a self-relaxation as argued by iPleaders.
On #4: Differences in the number of entries in various lists of approved distance education providers (for instance, 26.05.2015 and 26.08.2016) published by the UGC between 2013 and 2017 clearly bely the same. In any case, Annamalaiunequivocally holds that such inaction, even assuming iPleaders’ assertion to be true, by the UGC does not result in automatic approval.
On #6: The claim that UGC has agreed with iPleaders’ position is based on convenient reading of a purported RTI response. Apart from that, there is no express or implied agreement by the UGC, as claimed. It is settled that an RTI cannot be used for obtaining legal advice, and in any case, RTI responses are not to be read as statutes. The rest is mere name-dropping and legally irrelevant to that extent.
On #7: Arjun has himself been supporting a thorough investigation, with fair opportunity of being heard for all relevant stakeholders, since the very beginning. Curiously, neither iPleaders nor its students have claimed (either before the courts or the EC) that the basis of the 32nd AC’s, 61st EC and 62nd EC decisions, i.e., the courses were being run illegally, is incorrect. In fact,iPleaders’ students’ W.P. No. 25595 (W) of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta was recently dismissed on the basis that it merely challenged NUJS’ belated notices to suspend/ terminate distance education courses and not the 32nd AC’s decision itself. It has been over a year since the 32nd AC first suspended iPleaders’ courses.
Full arguments below
We had given both sides several opportunities to respond to the counter-cases, and have uploaded their full arguments below.
Comments
*cough*
https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/west-bengal/panel-to-probe-ex-vc/cid/1417890
The old alumni believe that the treatment of iPleaders is merely one of dozens of examples in which the old alumni have been systematically snubbed by the Bhat-era SJAs in every sphere.
iPleaders is trying to do what Enhelion is doing at GNLU, the only difference being that iPleaders offers a better product. The courses earned some money for the college (as opposed to ZERO before) and improved the reputation of the college. It was also a good example of student entrepreneurship, as opposed to the same law old law firm route.
A disgruntled set of losers in the faculty (famous for plagiarised PhDs, zero knowledge of law and village-level English) got jealous at some professors getting a slice of the pie. As these clowns can never get consultancy opportunities themselves, they set out to sabotage iPleaders. These people would never get any importance among old alumni, but they have many fans among the current students as they bribe them with marks.
You can then conclude what happened next, and also what is happening now. Why the current "squatter" VC is not facing protests despite being worse than Bhat. Why the clown profs have a lot of clout and enjoy student support. Why no one is raising their voice at a VC not being appointed 7 months after the advertisement. Why no alumni petition is being mobilised (unlike the one in 2012).
#WeStandWithRamanuj
Are they seriously thinking that by simply claiming that they did no wrong they can exonerate themselves? They keep saying no one is listening to them, but they have not addressed one letter to the EC arguing this non-sensical stance of theirs. They have not filed any petition claiming that their courses are legal. There are EC resolutions recording their illegalities, which have not been questioned. This is a distraction tactic to misguide the inquiry set up by EC few days back.
For the time being, why do not you comment on what basis you held the courses to be illegal in EC meetings, and what were the instruments which made the course illegal? Point it out please. Arjun failed, maybe you will succeed.
On one side we can see prestige of a great institution being crushed by some [...] who don't even know about the vision of their predecessors.
On other side there are old students who are still providing services and completing their part of contract. God will always help them.
On the third side there are students who had trusted NUJS who fraudulently took money from them and now not providing them their certificates.
And on the forth side I can see bunch of ideot NUJS teachers teaching and making another bunch of ideots. Now even god can not save NUJS. I can bet that no one will trust NUJS after all that is happening.
[...]
Only one word for them....... Aaakthuuu
Unfortunate that a 2018 Grad is owning old-timers so ruthlessly! But good fun, nonetheless, for us fence sitters.
1. While other NLUs crave alumni as faculty, here faculty from the old generation are treated with contempt by the current students. Instead, a virtually illiterate prof is treated as god.
2. Even people offering free of charge iPleaders-type initiatives (e.g. 2-day course on corp law) are told to FO. Recently, a senior NLSIU alum giving guest lectures at NUJS was shocked that half the class was stoned from partying.
3. The old generation was expressing sadness for friends of NUJS who recently passed away, like Menon, Somnath Chatterjee, Dipankar Gupta etc. Some initiatives to honour them were proposed. The young generation was like "who the hell are these people"?
I support iPleaders. Justice and truth will prevail in the end.
[...]
@Kian, it appears you're only filtering anti-iPleaders comments. Please be fair, and don't filter this if [...]
As of today, a High Court judge, Justice PPB has recorded in an interim order that it's not understood how NUJS entered into MoUs with unknown private entities such as iPleaders. [...]
1. While the slugfest continues here, it is a fact that Arjun's version has been repeatedly accepted by the EC. iPleaders pleads that UGC approvals were optional or not required. Why did PIB and Co not mention this in the AC and EC and instead kept droning that UGC approvals will be acquired and courses will not be started without such approvals? Why did iPleaders help PIB and Co in filing an application to UGC?
2. Discounting the allegation that The EC (and AC) were allegedly blindsided by certain internal members previously to approve distance education courses without mandatory UGC approvals in place, Injustice League members were in the EC and AC when these courses were banned. Assuming that Lord Taluk was biased, what about the rest of the EC members? Don't tell me that EC members love Arjun or SJA.
3. The EC that was allegedly blindsided into approval hasn't changed much in composition. So why did they suddenly become deaf to veteran Injustice League EC members? Same goes for AC.
4. iPleaders always had access to the EC/AC. Did they write to the VC/Registrar/EC members requesting that their version be taken up? They had sympathisers in the EC and AC and still do. Maybe iPleaders should check what their faculty sympathisers are really doing.
5. Since plagiarism issue keeps coming up, why not complain to the VC/Registrar/AC/EC members directly? Afraid that the fire may spread elsewhere? Since Vendetta has been posting anonymous letters and comments, why this shoot-and-scoot? But be very careful what you ask for.
6. Here is a thing with iPleaders and its NUJS sympathisers. You all plead-and-say-a-lot. Can you please shift to doing something other than that? GoT was a bummer. The campus is Damned. We need better entertainment.
7. Btw whoever was talking about 3000 students getting affected, I have Ramsay Bolton for you "If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." You are very welcome to try SC. But remember the numbers that got affected in 2G and Coalgate scams, derecognition of engineering and medical degrees, universities being shuttered etc.
1. If EC had been truly convinced about illegalities having taken place, why on earth has it not been finishing the inquiries going on for over one year now? Instead all the actions that have been taken seem like interim ones, just like the admin, playing both sides, seeing where the wind blows. The courses too have not been banned, or the money refunded. Just suspended. Some on the day of exams, which have actually caused NUJS' reputation to be tarnished before the outside world. Even worse is the continuing silence of the admin about this and their refusal to respond to students of those courses. EC can't do everything for the admin, then the EC members may as well take residence in VC's office. On the contrary, this seems more and more like a ploy by the current admin to keep those faculty members in check, who were involved with this course. PIB I suspect did exactly the same by refusing to take action on PN Sinha Report, because the people whom it lambasted weren't close to PIB, but he found it more useful to keep them quiet instead of taking action and finishing it conclusively.
2. I don't really know Arjun's motives or reasons. But what he has done has been done. He's no more a student here. He can of course write op eds or file petitions as he deems fit. That's his right. Maybe there are things wrong within those petitions, I don't know. What about focusing on the allegations that are obviously and evidently true? Even if one doesn't jump to punish the guilty for alleged wrongs committed earlier, why not at least focus on doing things now without irregularity instead of focusing on damaged egos? Have faculty recruitment, apply for NAAC, get the research culture revived, enter into MOUs with foreign universities, have regular good quality credit courses by alumni and industry experts.
3. The first step is to ensure that the place gets a decent and permanent VC. Why aren't the existing students protesting and demanding for that? The next is to wrap up these never ending inquiries quickly. Censor the guilty, but at the same time, EC should take a careful look at itself if a handful of faculty could have hoodwinked them so easily about actual legalities of a policy or action! These are also people of law, not lay persons after all. At least ensure that proper procedure is in place so that something like this can't happen future, whether the Justice League fights for it or the Injustice League. Having as many as four faculty in the EC itself seems useless and suspicious, not to say overkill. With the VC and Registrar, there are now 6 people internally in the EC, whereas not more than 10 members appear for meetings overall.
4. I understand that students aren't expected to run the university or run after righting all wrongs. But given the strife between senior faculty, only they are left who can actually do something. Take lessons from other NLUs where others have protested effectively. It can be done in a civilised yet forceful manner. The academic standards of the place are collapsing, as is its reputation outside, despite occasional actions of note and worth, mostly by students. If this isn't stopped and reversed in time, students won't find an institution left worth fighting for. The faculty would continue to get salary, don't forget that, as will people in the admin. Don't listen to either camp, just think for yourself, and do what's best for NUJS.
Many here think that the internal feud is between rather particular non-NLU folks and the so-called competent but terribly wronged faculty mostly composed of folks having NLU and industry backgrounds. The reality is far more complex. There is also subterranean clash between two insecure sets of NLU groups and both have blood on their hands.
This internecine factionalism can only be reset if some are booted out or up and through fresh infusion of sizeable numbers of quality faculty. Only when the fats cats feel threatened that their cushy tushies are going to get whupped by competition will they stop mudslinging.
I believe Arjun has unwittingly started a process of creative destruction. As Qyburn put is so eloquently "Sometimes before we can usher in the new, the old must be put to rest"
Every person who is boasting about quality of Ipleaders courses need to understand how practical their approach has been. Without challenging the AC resolution, without challenging the UGC resolution, they sought relief. Even if 1 person involved in the case was anywhere close to the place where real stuff gets done, would have had the practical knowledge of what was to be done.
[img]https://i.ibb.co/vhj1ckh/xxxxx.png[/img]
then there are a number of others who are happy with the existing regime : everyone passes, no one is ever punished for plagiarism, one can get away with any sort of indiscipline.
https://epaper.thestatesman.com/2186630/Kolkata-The-Statesman/6th-June-2019#page/16/2
Looking at the arguments for and against these ipleaders courses I feel this boy (Arjuna Agrawal) jumped the gun with some [...] and hasty conclusions on what is legal and what is illegal. The ipleaders reply is so mature and measured as contrasted to Arjuna [...]. Not surprisingly the boy has not been able to come up with a reply to ipleaders.
The sad part is that this senseless /mindless accusation led to WBNUJS losing a tried and tested partnership which did raise the visibility of the university and generated goodwill. Now all that is left is ill-will, bitterness and burning bridges with the older alumni who seem to have washed their hands off WBNUJS.