The new bar exam for law graduates is understood to be held in late August with the Bar Council of India (BCI) set to announce the syllabus in a matter of days. Meanwhile, NUJS Kolkata final year students and Professor Shamnad Basheer have petitioned BCI chairman and solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam to postpone the exam until 2011 because they argue it prejudices students and is unconstitutional without amending the Advocates Act 1961.
Basheer wrote in an email to NUJS faculty on 8 May: “Many of us were skeptical and wondered whether the Bar Council could pull [a bar exam] off this year, but it appears that they are fairly confident that they can logistically handle this.
“I just spoke to the SG, Mr Subramanium (who is also the current Bar Council chairman), who mentioned that the bar exams will certainly be held this year. It is most likely to be held in the latter half of August—but certainly before September. They will try as best to ensure that students leaving for their LLMs etc are not prejudiced.
“The syllabus and structure of this exam would be put up on the Bar Council website in 4-5 days time. He also categorically mentioned that the bar exam would apply to all students passing out this year, irrespective of whether or not they get themselves enrolled before the onset of these exams.”
Currently the syllabus or further information on the bar exam have not been uploaded to the BCI website.
An all-India bar exam was announced by the BCI and endorsed by law minister Veerappa Moily in early May. The exam is planned to become a prerequisite to the practice of law for all 2010 graduates, although students expressed reservations at the time.
Basheer and NUJS final year students have today sent a letter to Subramaniam, arguing that holding a bar exam this year would prejudice current final year students and was unconstitutional after the case V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1999 SC 1167 without amendment of the Advocates Act.
Basheer wrote in the letter that he and students were supportive of the “wonderful initiative of a bar exam” although rushing through it would “prove counterproductive to your vision for regulating the profession in a more optimal manner”.
“We are concerned about the prospect of holding such exam at such shot notice i.e. a mere two months from now. May we please request you to defer the proposed bar exam to next year, such that it only applies prospectively to candidates that graduate (with LLB degrees) next year? […]
As you will appreciate, a bar exam has never been held in this country since the 1970’s and students had a legitimate expectation that there would be no exam this year. With only a few weeks left for most students to graduate, it will inconvenience them to a very high degree. Many of them have signed contracts with law firms and lawyers and are scheduled to begin working in the months of June-July. Lawyers and law firms may have hired them on the expectation that they are ready to go on day one and not handicapped from appearing in court or practicing law, owing to a bar exam, that has been suddenly instituted after 35 years. Many other students are going abroad for jobs and higher degrees (LLM’s) and will be placed at a great disadvantage owing to this sudden announcement.”
Basheer further noted that the exam could prove logistically very difficult to execute at such short notice. “This exam will require immense planning and co-ordination as it is likely to have at least 45,000 candidates, if one assumes that the 900 odd law schools in the country might generate at least 50 candidates on an average this year.” The Common Law Admissions Test (CLAT), by contrast, has only 15,000 candidates each year and generally took national law schools 10 months to plan each year, added Bahseer.
“Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the V Sudeer case (V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1999 SC 1167) does not appear to permit a bar exam by the BCI (Bar Council of India) without an amendment to the Advocates Act. In Sudeer, the court categorically held that any additional eligibility criteria for the practice of law over and above what was mentioned in Section 24 of the Advocates Act was unconstitutional. Particularly if such additional criteria amounted to either a bar exam or a training of some sort, since the power to mandate such exams/training was expressly taken away via an amendment in 1974 to the Advocates Act.
As you are no doubt aware, in the light of the 1974 amendment, once a student legitimately cleared his or her exams at a recognized University, he/she was entitled to enroll in a state bar council and practice before any court of law, without having to undergo training or take an exam of any sort. Therefore, if such an exam needs to be conducted by the BCI, it can be done only through a legislative amendment.
The court in Sudeer stressed that an enrolment comes with an automatic right to practice—subject to conditions of practice framed by BCI, High courts and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the BCI cannot, in my personal view, attempt to pass off a bar exam as a “condition of practice”, since such an exam would effectively emasculate the concept of enrolment i.e. enrolment is meaningless without the right to practice. In short, the court is likely to see this cleverly crafted condition of practice as nothing more than a camouflaged “pre-enrolment” condition, a condition that the BCI has no authority to impose under the present statutory scheme. As you are aware, the court in Lawyers Collective vs Ashurst defined the term “practice” to widely include not just the right to appear before courts, but to also include all kinds of non-litigious practice as well (transactional work and legal advise etc). Therefore divesting enrolled lawyers of the right to practice upon enrolment will have serious consequences for all law graduates this year. […].”
NUJS students also wrote a letter to Subramaniam, expressing approval for a bar exam in principle, but requesting the exam to be only held in 2011 for the first time.
Click here to read Basheer’s full letter and click here to read the NUJS students’ letter to Subramaniam.
UPDATE 14 May 2010: Bar exam to be postponed to December 2010.
Photo by comedynose
Comments
Informative article, thanks...
[Thanks for pointing out, apologies about the typo. -Ed]
And law firms will give you work and pay you for your work pending bar exam results. You may not be permitted to send out emails to clients (which in any case you will not in your first few months) - but that will not impact your so called "employment" contracts.
I think Mr Gopal Subramanium should not take any rash step this year because under the garb of it being a boon it would prove to be a bane and the entire machinery of such a "noble step" by the BCI would collapse in its very first year of implementation.....
as for your laughing, i dont think anyone at nujs, or otherwise cares!
as for the letter, i think Shamnad makes a valid point. it is highly unprofessional and unreasonable for the implementation of the exams within such a short notice. the administrative functions in the given time frame leaves no margin for error at all. the examination initiative is highly appreciated, and im sure students at nujs agree to that, but then it has to be conducted in an orderly and reasonable manner, which is not as is happening right now.
Who will be required to sit for the exam? Is there a time period within which they must sit for the exam? What will be syllabus for this exam? Who will be responsible for setting and conducting the exam? Can a person who fails to clear the exam sit again for the exam? If so, how many times can they do so? These are only some of the basic questions that come to mind which all need to be discussed and debated before such a measure should be introduced.
I wholeheartedly endorse the BCI's new-found vigour for improving the professional standards of Indian lawyers but find it intensely ironical that they are going about it in such an unprofessional manner!! They would be well served to look at the SRA which regulates solicitors in England and Wales and the procedure they follow before introducing changes to the regulations applicable to the profession. I hope that this ad-hoc off-the-cuff approach to regulatory matters is a matter of grave concern for all Indian lawyers though judging by some of the comments above, this is clearly not the case!
However, I m concerned over the fact the Solicitor General gave an undertaking to the SC in Bar Council of India vs Bonnie FOI Law College and others (Reference SLP (Civil) 22337 of 2009) that he will conduct a bar exam by 2010. So, can anybody throw some light on the possible impact of such undertaking ?
In such a scenario, they would have to come back just to take the bar exam. That is the only point made (with respect to being inconvenienced) for students going for LLMs.
Having said that, I feel compelled to add the last bit of Shamnad's mail to Gopal Subramaniam -
Dear Mr Subramanium:
My heartiest congratulations on your recent election as the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI). It is rather fortuitous that you were elected to this important post soon after your had articulated your vision for an all India bar exam before the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India vs Bonnie FOI Law College.
As you are aware, during the consultative process undertaken by you in the context of Bar Council of India vs Bonnie FOI Law College, I had submitted a paper to you advocating strongly for a bar exam. I attach this again for your reference.
Needless to state, a number of us applaud your initiative and do hope that it will go a long way towards improving the quality of lawyers in India.
.
.
.
Given all the above circumstances, I hope you will kindly consider deferring this exam to next year, such that it applies prospectively to only those law graduates that pass out next academic year.
To conclude, let me please reiterate that we are very much in support of your wonderful initiative for an all India bar exam and are ready to help in whatever way you deem fit to make this a success.
We however feel that rushing it through within the next 2-3 months may result in a sub-standard and badly executed exam and prove counterproductive to your vision for regulating the profession in a more optimal manner.
I think Shamnad is being quite reasonable.
What right does the bar have to jeopardize our jobs ...@ 1 we are people and the future of the legal community not creases to be ironed out (of existence!)
If our jobs and salaries can be put on hold why not even the advocates already registered
Its a good move to introduce the exam but it comes far too late in the year
2) Just saw that the medical council of india is going to be dissolved. the same thing should happen to the bar council.
3) As for the NUJS petition, the students are just selfish and want to avoid it themselves but doom future batches to give it.
the chairman of BCI cannot just create a bar exam based on his whims and fancies. Reform needs a process, a proper legislative amendment is necessary to emend Section 24 of the Advocates Act before any of this can be implemented.. there is also Supreme Court decision stating no additional qualifications are necessary. According to Art. 141 that is law which binds all subordinate courts and state actions..
BCI can and in my opinion should implement bar exam (it is a huge step forward to revamp the legal profession) but in the process they need to follow the principles laid down by our constitution.. as the laws stands today, implementing bar exam is unconstitutional and thus void and no amount of fretting will change that..
Law is thus the most powerful element in the modern world, while it creates and paves path for clarity, it also puts check on arbitrary and unconstitutional activities.. Well done NUJS, completely in support.
No person can give such an undertaking, how can one individual give an undertaking to surpass the procedure of amending the law, surpass placing the Bill at both the houses, surpass getting assent, surpass the SC judgment which states any additional qualification other than that stated in Section 24 of the AA is unconstitutional and straight away jump to undertake the implementation of bar exam by 2010. Holding of bar exam cannot be based on the whims of one individual, it needs sanction from both houses. Thus, such undertaking is seriously a joke and devoid of any legal justification or merit..
Coz it is certain that if the guys from nujs dont file a petition claiming it unconstitutional, someone would. in which case, either the exam could be postponed till the pending of the suit, or they could still go ahead with it. in the 2nd situation, what if subsequently they held it to be inconstitutional. wouldnt it just be better to pass an amendment or seek the SC's opinion u/a 143 and then go on with it, in the way, clearing all doubts and confusions.
But #15, I salute you. You are the future of the legal profession. Sadly, I cannot say the same about NUJS final year students.
NUJS VC: Take this up yo. Unless you approve. Then (oh dammit, legallyindia will just censor what i say).
[We don't censor things if they are not abusive or outright obvious untruths. Half-truths we will let stand - in this case, we understand that NUJS faculty was on board with this movement. -Ed]
Three points:
a) if you read the letter well you will realize addresses concerns that are practical in nature in terms of contractual obligations already entered by most ( if not all ) students at most universities and not an NUJS specific reply. NLU, NLS, NALSAR etc all stand to benefit from the deferment if it takes place.
b) Its easy to criticize a batch but the letter (read carefully) deals with the practicalicity of conducting such an exam. An initiative of this nature cannot be bought in haste.
c) Legal proffession deals with what is and not what ought to be as you must have come across sometime in your educational/professional career. As of now it is unconstitutional and whether or not it is required is irrelevant unless an amendment of the law takes place.
this isnt just about nujs, its also about the thousands of other law graduates who will have hardly any time to prepare and give an exam. Infact places like nujs, nalsar and nls will probably be the least affected considering their academic curriculum. The point is that its simply wrong to hold the bar exam under the circumstances and without giving appropriate time to ALL law students.
I am sure you can find a way to laugh at this as well, but i humbly beg you to try and see some sense in the argument, failing which, chuckle away my friend.
You must be unfamiliar with Prof MP Singh's ideological leanings. Let's just put it this way: he is unlikely to have a poster of Ayn Rand on his wall. MP Singh will probably not side with the students bcoz he will think they are "elitist" etc etc
There many things I would like to say about the people who run legal education in this country, but as you say "oh dammit, legallyindia will just censor what i say"
I don't see what the problem i, i mean we all know that the bar exam will be implemented next year, why does Gopal have to be in such a rush. on that note i dalso dont think it fair on final year students who will be passing out this year( p.s i am not a final year student) i mean regardless of the fact of whether the NUJS students are chickening out or not, looking at it from a reasonable point of view its not fair.
Thirdly i think Shamnad has pointed out the view regarding procedure to conduct such an exam, i mean the least you could do is follow procedure and amend the said section in the advocates act.
every fielld of social life need some standard as per requirement of that field. Litigation side of legal profession for last many years become dumping ground for incompetent and optionaless people.
In these circumstance BCI decision to conduct the exam is a very laudable action. We all must congratulate BCI to do so at ealiest. If cause of action is s good, law can change....and if necessary parliamanet will change amend th advocate a. But one must appraciate the good intention behind the decisions to uplift standard of legal profession and excuse about disadvantages is nothing but trying to find escape route. If not much time left for exam, then it is for every student, not only for student of particular Institute.
The 'employment' contract argument: Are you suggesting that the bar exam will come in the way of students 'contactual obligation' to law firms? That a law firm would have a case of action against the student for being 'unable' to commence work on the tentative start date? I think this argument is so ludicrous that it does not merit a response. Law firms will go out of their way to accomodate student concerns about the exam. And they will retain you on commencement date, and pay you even if you are not registered.
The 'practicality argument': Please watch Gopal Subramanium's interview with rainmaker on youtube. He acknowledges that it is a huge challenge, but he will ensure that it will be done. Trust him. Trust the Bar Council. I'm certain they will do a wonderful job.
The 'constitutionality' argument: If the Act needs to be amended (and I haven't applied my mind to this), then it will be, in time. The SG knows what he's talking about.
Please support this initiative. Blindly, if need be. India deserves better lawyers. Do not resist change for short-term gains. I hope a law school in India publicy comes out in support of this. And I know for a fact, that not all NUJS faculty want to be associated with this campaign.
For every argument, there is a for and an against. Some NUJS students / professors have decided to express their displeasure / concerns on the BCI’s “sudden quick reform” … it is just a point of view. If this makes you “lose respect”, you have already lost your own marbles in the first place. Your posts make you sound so ridiculous, you can never imagine !!! NUJS is one of the best lawschools in the country (and I won’t even attempt to establish that with facts and figures of NUJS’ achievements). Surely, you don’t lose respect for an institution for a view its members may have? Ah, but you do! I somehow get the feeling that you people are just jealous of NUJS. In the lawschool community, we all respect each other a lot, so you are either an “outsider” or a NUT.
On a burning issue which comes as a “surprise” (“surprise” is probably understatement of the decade) and a course of action which is a “quick surgery”, to say the least (and thus alarming), stakeholders are bound to protest. Although I have graduated and am enrolled, I totally support everyone who opposes the “exam” as far as its timing and implementation is concerned. This is a “quick surgery” and as Krishna Iyer said (in a different context) … quick surgeries can be a successful failure!
Btw …. I [solemnly affirm that] am not an alumnus of NUJS !!!
Firstly....what's the hurry?
Looks like the law minister and the SG suddenly had a bad dream and woke up to the situation. When did lawyers stop thinking rationally and started acting upon ideas which crossed their minds sipping a cup of tea.
If its a reformative step, it will be welcomed by everyone, but to argue it has to be implemented THIS very year, defeats the argument and warrants opposition.
Not that clearing the exam will even be a task for the law school graduates, but having done law, there needs to be some kind of rationality behind the decision one takes, particularly if it affects the future of thousands of students.
I understand the panic that has gripped the members of the bar; the overwhelming response from the law graduates to join the bar, due to lack of good employment or by sheer choice.
These bunch of well groomed and well educated lawyers will surely give the "experienced" advocates a run for their money. And I look at this step as one desperate measure on the part of the powers that be to "regulate" the entry to the bar.
SO be it. But whats the hurry???
Second. I do not understand why people try to stifle voices of dissent. If a Shamnad Basher decides to join the teaching profession out of sheer choice and doing good for a law school (for heavens sake im not an alumni of nujs or nls), people cant stand the fact.
I know for a fact, as to how some very bright law school pass outs, are NOT being allowed by the (insecure) admin to join as faculty in one of the best law schools in India.
Infact, I always looked at it as battle between the old guard and the new guard. Both at the Bar and in the Law schools, there is a tussle between the old guard and the new guard, trying to deny the sophisticated and well informed law graduates from taking faculty positions in law schools. Nujs is the only exception and thanks to Mr. M.P.Singh.
Same is the case with the Bar; they complain students from law school refrain from joining the bar, and when they do, this is how they create barriers.
Before I conclude, I would like to state the obvious. The test, if held this year will only end up in the courts, so guys bother not.
Regards
Nonetheless, the arguments of the NUJS students are still frivolous as pointed out by a few above and the fact remains that the bar exam can be taken anytime upon returning from their LLM courses.
In my opinion, IF the Bar Council fudges this exam, then there is every right to complain; however, before the exam is even conducted -questioning the competency of the body in conducting such a test should not be raised.
...
written by Anonymous guest, 03 May 2010 23:18
I am a final year law student - this post does not reflect my views. It is foolish to oppose reform. We cry ourselves hoarse about the state of the legal profession and when the BCI finally does something that makes sense, we cry ourselves hoarse about something that is just so damn petty it makes my blood boil. there is a lot that is wrong with the profession - focus your energies there - not cry to your mummy saying "but this is out of syllabus" or "but we want preparation time, and mock tests". For crying out loud, behave your age. You are not in class six. And comparisons with the NY bar are just foolish - this is not going to be anything like the NY bar - you know it. If i were the Chairman, i would say this in response to this badly drafted, insecure and just plain stupid letter: "Shove it".
Signed: A law schoolite who is confident about her legal acumen and basic legal knowledge
First all of u please read the advocates Act.
Please show show some maturity while passing comments. That is more important than bar exams to become a lawyer.
the shifting of the date of the exam is a clear indication that the bar council itself realizes the difficulties in holding the exams so soon and with no preparation. GS did state that he would make it happen, and i would not dare doubt his competence .... but holding an all India exam is something which requires a lot of ground work and immense coordination which seems to be lacking in the bar council.
They can take a shot at holding it in dec, but i doubt they can do a good job of it ... if they can, i stand corrected.
To restate some above, NUJS is not saying dont hold the exam, its clear it totally supports it ... its merely saying saying that it should be done with adequate preparation and in an efficient manner.
and YOU laugh at others?
make arguments, but don't just make them for the sake of just posting any random jazz. first you misunderstand what is so clearly discussed, and then you come and waste every readers time. stop bad-mouthing my law school because you're a jobless [censored]. Unless you're GV in which case, this was expected.
losing respect for NUJS / Shamnad Sir? so, only you are entitled to an opinion? If the aggrieved batch at NUJS wants to petition, it's their prerogative. a faculty member who had previously interacted with Mr GS about the bar exam cannot write to him to share his point of view? mate, I don't know what law school you're from - but I can only hope that it doesn't put to practice what you seem to preach.
as far as any question on the merit of the petition goes, the petition raises concerns of those directly affected. it's hardly of any consequence whether those who draft the letter are from NUJS / NLS / NALSAR.
This is something like a parent who tells his child's teacher that he is fully supportive of corporal punishment for maintenance of classroom discipline but adds
"My child is very sensitive. If he misbehaves, just slap the child next to him. That will scare him into behaving."
The comments on possible logisitic difficulties in conducting an exam at short notice are valid. However, if there is a will at the top these can be overcome. Arguments regarding final year students wishing to study abroad are rather specious.
The NUJS bashing in this article is completely unjustified and ridiculous. Here are a few facts which have not been pointed out, which need to be known before any comments can be made.
1. The Supreme Court in BCI v. Bonnie Foi Law College constituted a committee of experts to look into the 'role of the Bar Council in Legal Education in India'. This committee took the opinion of several legal pedagogical experts, which also included two noted NUJS professors. The report was sent in the context of excessive regulation of BCI in prescribing/regulating the conduct of the LLB courses in the Universities, syllabus, subjects etc., which should not ideally be done by the BCI, but rather the colleges themselves or the UGC etc. The BCI should only be empowered to 'maintain the standards' of legal practice and therefore, should be mandated to do so at the stage of entry of lawyers into practice. The recommendation was that the best way to do the same was to hold a bar exam.
2. Therefore, in the very inception of the idea of holding a bar exam (and this was last year), NUJS had a significant role to play. That being the case, it is an added responsibility on the same professors making such recommendations to ensure that the suggestions they have made are not implemented in a manner where they undermine the basic purpose of holding the exam.
3. We must also remember that it is very easy for persons to sit in a corner and pass cynical remarks on anyone to takes a view and acts in furtherance of it, particularly in a controversial issue. Such a person puts himself in a position where he will be criticised if he takes either of the courses, and should therefore be respected even if one disagrees on a pure question of opinion. The difference between him and an average person with an opinion is that his conviction is so strong that he decided to ACT on it, while the average person did not.
4. As far as the Final year students of NUJS (and NALSAR, NLSIU etc.) go - these students have worked hard for several years to secure the jobs etc. they have. It is completely justified if they are concerned about their efforts being undermined by uncertain policy and a badly conducted exam. NUJS is holding CLAT next year and knows the kind of preparations required to hold an exam of this magnitude.
I suggest that under these circumstances, it is good to show some deference towards them and temper our criticisms accordingly. They are the ones who have been in the thick of the action since last year and are in the best position to decide between right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate, too much/to little.
And yet GS made a song and dance in the media about how they would definitely hold it in July!
Doesn't this itself caution us towards not trusting the BCI completely--they just haven't thought this through well enough! which means the NUJS letter on logistical difficulties etc did have some merit? the letter supports a bar exam--but only from next year--for everyone including those from NUJS also. this appears to be a fair request.
The BCI is caught between the devil and deep sea. They cannot hold it in July without botching it up. And if they hold it in December, they will severely prejudiced those that pass out this year...forget the NUJS folks., what about the thousands of folks passing out from small law colleges that might have waited to earn their bread and butter from day one--but find that they have to wait till next year (as results will be declared only then). There is no point in giving the right to enroll on day one without the right to practice. such right to enrollment is simply sterile!
Fortunately, there is a simple solution: hold the exam for the next graduating year next year! Wonder why GS hasn't thought of this awfully simple solution!
The LLM argument is a valid one for a person who would want to get employed straight after his/her LLM - probably abroad. And again, everyone assumes that someone who can afford to go for an LLM can afford to come back, wait around till whenever the exam takes place next (we don't know yet whether it will be conducted more than once a year but even assuming its twice a year - it could entail a waiting period of 3-4 months!) and then go back. And while all this happens, firms would be willing to keep the 'lawyers' on their payrolls. Seriously?
As for foreign law firms, I don't see why anyone who has already been offered a Training Contract would want to defer joining the firm by 6 months. Or worse still, how can we assume that everyone employed abroad is in a position to come back just to take the exam? This may be only a handful of people but I sincerely hope everyone's concerns are addressed before we bulldoze through with this plan with little or no thought applied to its feasibility.
@#37
You may argue that the Final year students at NUJS are "chickening out" but the practical considerations cannot and should not be overlooked. If sufficient notice for the exam was given, I don't think anyone would be even discussing "deferring" the exam. Everyone understands its a great initiative, and even if it meant starting with the current final year students (I am one). But to keep their status in limbo while the Bar decides how to go about this is ridiculous.
1.Absence of due notice: Students have signed employment contracts, LL.M.
2.Inconvenience: Two months time is too little for preparation
3.Unconsitutionality: BCI is not a legislative body and the Advocate Act demands that only a legislative amendment can impose a condition on “right to practise” (V. Sudeer case)
4.Impracticality: Infrastructure constraints
Comments and Response:
@mubashshir.sarshar- Verappa Moily proposed such an exam. So the Law Ministry and entire institution of legal education is behind BCI. Unlike CLAT which as components like Current Affairs, General Knowledge and Critical reasoning, the BCI exam will have analytical and descriptive question. How long do you think it takes to set a Law Paper anyway?
@7- I beg to differ with you on a very simple issue- Who are we to evaluate that the administration is incapable of implementing such an exam? If the People who have proposed this exam are confident, then I am sure there must be a reason behind this. The Supreme Court follows a golden rule while deciding on unconstitutionality of an Act- that the Act is presumed to be constitutional until it is proven otherwise. It is in the interest in the progress of this Country if we lay similar confidence in the Executives and offer them our support. It goes without mentioning that the BCI could be taken to task later, and a bad exam this time would only result in strong protests against the entire concept of this exam in future.
@8- I completely agree with you that there has been little or no consultation in the popular public media for this Exam. However, personalities like Shamnad Basheer were taken into confidence while constructing the idea of such an exam (letter). I think that BCI believes that what it is trying to implement is not radical enough, and I have reasons to believe they are right. The BCI is only trying to introduce a filter to standardize the profession, and so I believe if a student has knowledge of law and has done justice to his degree, he should be able to sail through. It is just an exam which is going to test you for something you have already been tested and certified. So how are you adversely affected in any way to expect public consultation and discussion?
@9- Dear Sir, Why do students need time to adapt? That is the point I made above. Its just a double certification exam, when you already have a certificate. If you were good enough to secure the first exam, you should be confident to get another will little efforts.
@11- Dear Sir, the point made by 5 could be better understood if you read letter written by NUJS students and not Shamnad’s letter. I am not endorsing Mr. “5”’s point, but simply promoting debate.
I am running out of time. But I would like to close with this-
No change is accepted readily by any society (in this case class of Graduates). Its because though change promises a better tomorrow, it demands a discomforting today. And what I can make out of this entire episode, especially of the graduating students is that they are being extremely selfish and narrow minded. I know that the move from the BCI is quick, but it is high time we rise ourselves up to requirements and challenges thrown to us and stare back at the blazing sun right in its eyes.
The letter by the NUJS batch of 2010 seems to be very well drafted. could you please tell us which students in particular have been particularly instrumental in this?
If you are interested you could get in touch with Shamnad Basheer (contact details on his Spicy IP blog), who would be able to confer with the students on whether they want their names to be public/passed on to you.
Best,
Kian