NLSIU student council ‘strongly condemns’ secretive, ‘drastic’ Rs 50k+ fee hike, appeals for alum help [UPDATE: NLUO, NUJS support]

NLS students oppose quiet 25% fee-hike rolled out quietly by admin
NLS students oppose quiet 25% fee-hike rolled out quietly by admin

NLSIU Bangalore’s Student Bar Association (SBA) has made a strong statement against the tuition fees hike of at least Rs 47,000 that had been quietly rolled out by the administration and appealed for help from alums to raise this at the next Executive Council (EC) meeting.

We had exclusively reported the fee hike a week ago, and the SBA said that while it understood the “legitimate concerns” behind the hike and the need to ensure an increase in faculty salaries, under the 7th Pay Commission, it would not be appropriate to unilaterally increase the fees and other expenses of students, without consultation with the student body.

It also criticised how the fee hike had been “discreetly put up” on a corner of the university’s website, rather than circulated in a notification by email.

Furthermore, the hike would come “at the cost of the financial stability of the families of the students. The parents of many students save throughout the year in order to ensure that they are able to pay their children’s fees. Thus, not only does this sudden and drastic increase of fee adversely affect the financial situation of the students, it obviously has an exaggerated impact on those in an already financially vulnerable position”.

The hike was announced at very short notice, which created the risk of students not being able to raise sufficient further loans to meet the unexpected additional costs, said the SBA.

The increase in tuition fees was “antithetical to the very purpose” of NLSIU, and would “obviously disproportionately affect students from socially vulnerable groups including students from scheduled castes/tribes who more than often come from economically disadvantaged sections of society”.

Alternative options should be explored, such as the “long-demanded nationalization as well as grant of Institute of National Importance (INI) status to NLSIU – we believe it is possible for students and the administration to collectively seek other such methods”, or, only making the fee hike applicable for incoming students and not for current students who may be left only with the choice of paying the higher fee - which could be unrealistic for some - or “dropping out of college”.

Update 15:22: The NLU Odisha student body association has expressed solidarity with NLSIU’s council (see full statement on Facebook):

We stand in solidarity with the students of NLSIU against the disproportionate fee hike imposed by the administration. National Law Univerisities need to take into account the economic hardships as well as the burden of education loans thrust upon the students before sanctioning any such hike. Therefore we strongly condemn the decsion made by the administration of NLSIU, Bangalore.

Update 3 July 2019: NUJS Kolkata’s student council has also supported the NLS SBA in an statement.

Full SBA statement:

Dear all, The annual fees for the B.A. L.LB. (Hons.), LLM and the MPP programs at NLSIU was recently increased by between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 60,000 for incumbent students, an increase of more than 25% of the existing fees. This was done without consulting the students, who were also not given any advance notice in order to prepare for such a hike. The Student Bar Association, NLSIU strongly condemns the sudden and drastic fee hike.

The 57th finance committee had, in its meeting on 5 August 2017, observed that the income of NLSIU from all sources had become stagnant. This is a grave concern and can potentially impact NLSIU’s financial as well as administrative autonomy. Due to this, the committee recommended an increase of students’ fee by Rs.20000 per annum. Further, former Chairperson, UG Council had recommended an increase of fees by 25% to implement the 7 th Pay Commission. Despite the decision to increase the fees being taken almost 2 years ago, the students only got to know of the hike through a fees notification dated May 5, 2019, which was discreetly put up on the college’s website, and whose existence the students discovered only much later. It is worth considering that in the past the college’s Finance Officer used to circulate the annual fees notifications on the mail.

It is important to note that even though the aim of the fee hike is to implement the 7 th Pay Commission, the hike is not made to only the tuition fee as would be appropriate, but rather to the overall fee under various heads without providing the rationale behind increasing the fees under these – such as Internet costs (which are already very high for the quality of service offered). Further, the old fees structure already had a provision for a 12% yearly increase to account for inflation. Therefore the fees hike under the different heads is unexplained, unforeseeable and has been implemented without adequate notice.

However necessary and precise these aims may be, they cannot be achieved at the cost of the financial stability of the families of the students. The parents of many students save throughout the year in order to ensure that they are able to pay their children’s fees. Thus, not only does this sudden and drastic increase of fee adversely affect the financial situation of the students, it obviously has an exaggerated impact on those in an already financially vulnerable position.

It is also important to recognize the adverse impact of this fee hike on the students who have either received scholarships or taken student loans to finance their studies. Therefore, not only will this fee hike result in additional unforeseeable financial burden on these students, the expeditious nature of the hike will potentially prevent the affected students from exploring alternative means of paying the fees, thus jeopardizing their education in the premier legal education institution of India.

It is important to recognize the compound effect of the fee hike on the students hailing from socially disadvantaged groups as well. The fee hike will obviously disproportionately affect students from socially vulnerable groups including students from scheduled castes/tribes who more than often come from economically disadvantaged sections of society. Given that NLSIU is a public institution created in furtherance of promotion of legal education, such a fee hike is antithetical to the very purpose of establishing this institution and has an adverse impact on the student body as well as the very spirit of inclusivity which permeates throughout the NLSIU fraternity.

Lastly, we would like to implore and urge the administration to explore non-detrimental ways and methods to cater to the needs of the institution. One of these is the long-demanded nationalization as well as grant of Institute of National Importance (INI) status to NLSIU – we believe it is possible for students and the administration to collectively seek other such methods.

However, we do understand the legitimate concerns of the administration that have led to this fee hike. If these concerns cannot be addressed through any other means, then we would like to propose an alternative where the revised fee structure is prospectively applicable only for the incoming students, and not for the current students. This will potentially alleviate the situation for the lot of current students who are only left with choosing between paying the increased fee, or dropping out of college – neither of which may be desirable, acceptable or realistic choices for a many of the students at NLSIU.

We will be making a representation regarding this to the Executive Council during their meeting on the 6th of July, and would greatly appreciate any help we can get in dealing with this issue from alumni, members of the legal fraternity or any other person. We look forward to your support in ensuring that NLSIU continues to be a representative and inclusive institution, and ensuring that no student seeking legal education is deprived of the same, either before or during their course, on account of fee hike.

Comments

Stupid demands 1 Jul 2019, 06:23
+9 -9
Which planet do the students live on? You are paying a fraction of what IIM students pay and are getting comparable packages. You people spend lakhs on laptops, smartphones and foreign trips, but have a big problem when it comes to paying fees. Please understand that It costs money to hire good faculty and improve facilities. Do you not want good NLU alumni to teach you? I am sick of this subsidy culture in India. Taxpayers money should fund village schools, not entitled NLU brats.

And BTW the Karnataka govt will ask for domicile quota if you ask them for money.
kianganz 1 Jul 2019, 06:26
+12 -3
I don't think that students from economically weaker backgrounds can afford lakhs of laptops, smartphones and foreign trips...? The more tuition fees increase, the more difficult it will become to widen access to NLUs and such work and costs will be outsourced to institutions such as IDIA...
Stupid demands 1 Jul 2019, 06:49
+2 -3
Then same demands can be made of the IIMs also, where you pay close to 25 lakhs for just a 2 year course for similar placements. Why should NLUs be subsidised and not IIMs?
kianganz 1 Jul 2019, 06:55
+8 -7
Arguably law is a more fundamental part of the fabric of society than engineering, and ensuring diversity in the top law schools should therefore be a more important concern for a healthy constitutional democracy (providing they don't all join corporate law firms, that is)? Not sure, some may disagree.
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 10:59
+8 -1
Kian, IIMs teach management, not engineering. A better argument would be that they offer postgraduate degree that allows students to save up by taking jobs after graduation and then pursue the MBA. IITs are the ones who can be compared with the NLUs more readily and they offer lower fees, scholarships etc. because of the additional government support. Further, even in IIMs, a sudden hike of such substantial nature doesn't usually happen with incumbent students, but from new batch, which is also one of the options the students are suggesting here.
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 12:29
+3 -0
Not true. Majority of IIM students have no work ex, unlike ISB (where the fees is even more expensive).
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 13:01
+2 -2
Dude, buy yourself some sense of logic please. Just because majority of IIM students don't avail of that option doesn't mean it's not available for them. If they can pay their way or have financial conditions conducive to a loan (and a decent credit score), they can take those options. Those who can't, can still get a job, save some money and then do it. For NLU students, that option doesn't exist. How difficult is it to get that? Why don't you offer immediate loans to all NLSIU students right after CLAT results are out, if you are so confident that the process is so simple? Because it isn't. And banks in India do not change sanctioned educational loan amounts midway. Get off your Richie Rich horse and smell the real world scene once in a while instead of your overpriced starbucks coffee!
How much outrage 5 Jul 2019, 03:39
+2 -1
Time to get real. People need to stop whining about each and everything thing on campus like this. It reduces the legitimacy of actual protest. Wrt fee hike:

1. Fee hike was inevitable, if 7th Pay Commission was to be extended to the staff. SBA has no backbone to actually question this. For the sake of 20 odd permanent faculty, the fee of the entire college is being raised. But no, SBA can't actually ask "why is a non-Central Institution adopting 7th CPC scales, and then saying, because its adopting 7th CPC scales, fees need to hiked". This is absurdity at its worst. Even state governments that have agreed to have parity with 7th CPC (eg. Himachal Pradesh), did so only after it showed a revenue-neutral case for it. If SBA is actually being serious, it should raise this issue.

2. Unjustifiable parts of the hike - (a) applying it to existing students - this has never been done in Law School history, it was always prospective for new students; are the existing faculty so desperate for that hike?; (b) absurd components like "electricity fee" and "internet fee" - reality is that the internet infra on campus continues to be terrible (has been in all my years here) and most people have reconciled themselves with relying on data plans.

3. Marginalised sections - what a laugh/fig leaf. Everyone knows that if you are actually from a marginalised background (eg. Scheduled Tribe student from North East, IDIA scholars etc), college scholarships are given for the full amount, even if maybe it takes some time to get sanctioned. But they never make you pay anything, it just shows as dues for accounting purposing before it's set off. For those from relatively less marginalised backgrounds but still needing financial assistance, education loans from PSBs continue to be available (SBI, Corp Bank etc) - yeah it might require some red tape at the bank, but are you so entitled that it has to be delivered to your hostel room? What planet or country do you think you're living in? Yes, being financially insecure is no cakewalk, but claiming that the procedure for getting your loan is arduous is just vulgar - think about those who don't even have that in other colleges. Never has the college imposed any penalties for late fees in cases where loan/scholarship disbursal was delayed.

So yes, the reality is complex. Venkata Rao hasn't turned anyone away because of financial insecurity. He's extended every accommodation for scholarships and late fees. Yet, he also panders to every single constituency, like the faculty in this case shamelessly giving themselves a hike in line with 7th CPC. Pay hikes should follow a good revenue stream, rather than be given first and then try milking existing revenue streams. And Venkata Rao is (partly) to blame in part for the absolutely shambolic internet infrastructure on campus. My seniors across batches have fought for it, and nothing got done then and nothing gets done now. He should have kicked out the IT support staff a long time ago. So this blowback against him for this (to this extent), is perfectly justified.

PS: this Sudhir fever dream is getting out of hand. He is by no means a certainty and faces an uphill battle. Maybe he gets picked, but the other 2 are certainly lobbying around the clock - and entrenched faculty on EC are going to put up a fight.
Guest 5 Jul 2019, 05:18
+0 -0
Privilege dripping from every word of this comment. Tell me bro, have you ever tried raising 50k for your CLAT deposit at the tender age of 17 without daddy dearest giving it to you from his pocket? Should have tried it once before commenting on how easily loans are available, how easily scholarships can be had etc. I know this because I had to personally pay that as interest-free loans for at least 3 NLU kids whose family wasn't as fortunate as yours and even SBI wasn't willing to lend them the full five year fees without collateral. Their cumulative family income was 2 lakhs p.a. with each family having not less than 5 members. So get out of your ivory tower occasionally.
How much outrage 5 Jul 2019, 06:58
+0 -0
True, financial insecurity is not a lived reality for me. Doesn't mean I can't sympathise. Your general critique of CLAT deposits and NLUs being insensitive may be correct, but my point is only that THIS ISSUE AT LAW SCHOOL is more complex, and general culture of whining has taking it over as well. CLAT may have forced people to come up with deposits (by all means, improve that). But Law School (under Venkata Rao) has never held anyone back for not being able to pay a fee. SBA says "students may have to drop out". Even under the current fee structure, there are several students whose families are too poor to reliably afford that either. Has any of them suffered academically or administratively? No. The stress and insecurity may have some psychological impact, but in all fairness, the college admin has been responsible in mitigating it to the best that can be expected of them. In fact, at the last convocation, Venkata Rao announced that he's handing over an entire cash award he received (some scam best teacher prize it seemed like) over to the scholarship fund. Agreed, its usual Vankata Rao posturing, but it's still a good thing. This protest shouldn't be about inflating this "marginalised community" bogey, because in all fairness, law school has done a largely good deal on that front.

This protest should be about the reckless abandon with which a faculty committee headed by a professor recommended that the faculty give themselves a raise. And then say, "because we've given ourself this raise, we need to hike fees. Oh and because we need this raise immediately, hike fees for BOTH current students and incoming students". This is the problem. The absurd heads (electricity and internet) under which the fees are proposed to be levied, with no accountability on delivery of reliable services - that's the problem.

PS: good thing if you're actually helping kids come up with deposits and fees, as long as its not some lame virtue signalling. Having said that, Law School still commits that every person will be given an education regardless of financial status (fee waiver for most deserving, facilitating loans for others who need them). This is a wonderful achievement. Of course it might not be very convenient, there might be delays etc. They can be improved, but don't deny this with some tangential anecdotal cases (that don't even have to do with Law School). A prominent IDAI scholar (featured even in international media) is my friend. She/he has never had to pay a rupee to law school. Fees show up as dues, but by the end of the term they are set off against the scholarship money that is sanctioned.

So yeah, @SBA get real. Call out the real problem, and stop posturing.
Guest 5 Jul 2019, 07:20
+0 -0
You seem to be saying that the teachers are wrong in asking for a raise that everybody else across the country working at comparable institutions are getting. Why shouldn't they demand for it? Every NLU is paying 7th CPC to its teachers. If NLSIU can't afford that, then it shouldn't expect good teachers to remain there. If the current students can't bear the burden, then either the student intake has to be increased (when same students and alumni will start complaining about declining standards) or else government funds would have to be sought (which comes with strings attached). One can't have it both ways. The faculty aren't asking for charity or the sky, simply parity with comparable institutions.
How much outrage 5 Jul 2019, 07:58
+0 -0
No. By all means, pay teachers what they deserve. My problem is with the way this is being done. Teachers' committee recommending hike, with no outside scrutiny. Venkata Rao just deferring it and then accepting it. Realising that fees have to be hiked to pay for said pay raise. And then putting the burden on everyone, not just new students. Oh, and this is not for all teachers. Just the ones in permanent positions. So all of this, just for 20 teachers + staff. This is the problem. Even if 7 CPC is accepted, find a way to ease the fee hike in.

1. Let the new fee apply only to incoming students. In 2-3 years, coffers will fill up so that 7CPC can be implemented fully.
2. Or alternatively, don't complain about fee hike.

My problem is with the SBA, not the salary hike per se (although the role of faculty in deciding their own pay is ethically dubious). The SBA is trying to have its cake, and eat it as well. Their statement says "we agree with 7CPC but not with the fee hike". Pray do tell, how else will you pay for it? Fundraising, endowments, grants etc take time. So the only way to avoid an immediate fee hike, is to have a gradual increase in faculty salaries in line with increased and broader revenue streams that can be leveraged over time. But no, they want to get paid all at once. What entitlement.
kianganz 1 Jul 2019, 13:02
+1 -1
Thanks, sorry for the error, had misread IIM to say IIT. Same gist of my comment applies though.
Student.nls 1 Jul 2019, 21:02
+4 -0
The kind of privileges you are referring to is a thing of the past. Yes, a small portion of the Student body can afford MacBook, iPhone and foreign trips. But an increasing number of students are now from tier 2 and tier 3 cities, whose parents save throughout the year or take loans to somehow ensure that their child gets a good education. Even those on scholarships would tell you how cumbersome a process it is to get a scholarship right now, and how difficult it might be to get the amount increased by Rs.50000.
The last 5 years has seen an increasing number of students from tier 2 and 3 cities to join college. NLSIU was finally starting to be an institution where people from various different socio-economic backgrounds to get a good legal education. Unfortunately, due to the fee hike, the future might jeopardize this transformation.
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 06:27
+9 -3
Reminds me of the Jats who were demanding reservation while driving Fortuners and wearing gold chains.
#knowyourprivilege.
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 06:29
+0 -7
It is Sudhir who will take the final call. He will be sympathetic to the SBA.
Guestji 2 Jul 2019, 17:45
+3 -0
Keep living on planet mars
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 06:31
+4 -6
[quote]Alternative options should be explored, such as the “long-demanded nationalization as well as grant of Institute of National Importance (INI) status to NLSIU [/quote]

So the truth comes out. They don't want other NLUs to get he status, only NLSIU. That is why they have resisted calls for a joint NLU protest. Such selfishness!
kianganz 1 Jul 2019, 06:36
+4 -1
To be honest, I've been wondering, seeing the recent poster in the LI comments calling for a new march in Delhi for #NationaliseNLUs coming up -- is there actually a concerted effort on that front by the NLU Consortium or mostly just individual students? Is the July protest actually being organised? Is anyone doing any lobbying, etc?

If people in the core of this movement would like to reach out, please do contact us via the tips link on the top left of the page.

Many thanks
Kian
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 08:02
+7 -0
There is a plan for a protest among student and alumni WhatsApp groups of a few NLUs, but it is at an unofficial stage right now. Some students have raised questions:

1) Demand 1: Should new NLUs also get this tag? And what about Maharashtra and MP, which have more than one NLU?

2) Demand 2: Why not demand no domicile quota at all, like IIT and IIM?

3) Why not add demands for an All India Judicial Service and Legal Sector Liberalisation?

[img]https://i.imgur.com/To4Jo4I.png[/img]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/kxLWSg1.png[/img]
kianganz 1 Jul 2019, 08:09
+6 -0
Thanks for sharing. I think a potential issue is that making too many demands at once (such as rolling in foreign law firms, etc), is more likely to lead to political paralysis.

I would assume that's probably also the reason that the NLS SBA didn't raise the entire movement right now in its petition: it'd be hard enough to get the administration behind lobbying for just NLS ILU status. To make it something contingent on every NLU getting the status (or the wider movement, which still seems in its infancy), is likely to complicate and delay the issues even more...
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 06:37
+7 -0
NLSIU will not get support if it wants parity with IIT, IIM and AIIMS, but it may get support if it seeks parity with NID and NIFT, which are funded by the Union Textiles Ministry and currently get more funding than NLSIU. NLSIU can similarly be funded by the Union Law Ministry.
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 06:45
+0 -0
Be warned that NUJS students similarly protested high fees. What happened? The govt intervened and imposed domicile quota in exchange for funding.
Concerned student 1 Jul 2019, 14:07
+8 -0
The need to grant the institute of national importance status to NLU's is of paramount importance in current times.To put more pressure on the government some steps can be taken like.

1. Like how NLS mobilised alummi against the proposed domicle status, it along with all NLU's should get alumni support,hold backdoor negotiations etc.
2. Make submissions to the HRD Ministry over the Draft National Education Policy
3. Use social media to showcase the sub-par conditions of physical infrastrcture and any other problems if present
4. Stand in protest on campus , co-ordinated with all NLU's
5. Get media coverage to higlight the various problems
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 15:44
+3 -0
All of that requires a bulk if not majority of the students to be unselfish and look beyond petty individual short term interests. Sadly, that's rarely the case in law schools.
Guest 1 Jul 2019, 16:45
+6 -0
An update on the proposed joint NLUs protest. Below is the response coming from informal discussions among students in different NLUs. Due to lack of unanimity the idea could be dropped.

1. NLSIU: Not interested. Would prefer to take up NLSIU's concerns separately through Prof Sudhir and alumni.

2. NLUD: Not interested.

3. NALSAR: Not interested.

4. NUJS: Interested.

5. NLUJ: Not interested.

6. NLIU: Interested.

7. HNLU: Interested.

8. GNLU: Cannot participate because of disciplinary reasons.

9. RGNUL: Interested.

10. RMLNLU: Interested.
Bhaiya 2 Jul 2019, 06:01
+5 -0
Amusing how the "interested" NLUs are the ones who are going down the rankings (NUJS, NLIU) while those "not interested" are going up (NLS, NALSAR, NLUD, NLUJ). Makes sense, what better way to stay relevant than being part of yet another pointless "campaign "
Wakanda 2 Jul 2019, 02:05
+7 -0
There has historically been a lot of unity between the Big 5 IITs (Del, Bom, Mad, KGP, Kanpur) and Big 6 IIMs (A, B C, Lucknow, Indore, Kozhikode). They even have joint alumni bodies (called Pan IIT and Pan IIM) and the membership has now been extended to include the newer IITs and IIMs (Jammu, Kashipur etc). These organisations are very active and organise annual summits traditionally attended by the Prime Minister and Finance Minister. It is really unfortunate that law schools are disunited and have such huge egos.
Guest 2 Jul 2019, 02:09
+3 -0
NLIU Bhopal is ready for a joint protest demanding INI status and central govt funding. Name the time. Name the place. We'll send our toughest nibbas.
Guest 2 Jul 2019, 03:32
+1 -0
As the govt neglects NLUs, there is a chance that JGLS and DU may get Institution of Eminence status.
Guest 2 Jul 2019, 05:22
+2 -0
Both teach subjects other than law too. NLUs can't match that in near future.
Guestji 2 Jul 2019, 17:49
+1 -0
DU is already an institution of National importance . Check Entry 63 of 7th Schedule
Guest 2 Jul 2019, 05:02
+3 -0
It is pointless expecting NLSIU to be part of a bigger Nationalise NLUs movement. They will never join, so it is better to move on without them. They only want special status for themselves on the basis of their #1 NIRF rank. They will be happy if the competition deteriorates in quality. They will use the appointment of Sudhir Krishnaswamy to say "Look we have a Rhodes scholar from Oxford as VC, other NLUs suck and have desi faculty" (forgetting that the VC of one of these other NLUs fast tracked his career by 10 years).

On the other hand, the supposedly lower ranked NLUs have a greater incentive. Remember that is was a DSNLU Vizag student who drafted the NLU Nationalisation Bill when Prof Sugato Bose was an MP.
Pepe 3 Jul 2019, 01:57
+2 -1
The joint Nationalise NLUs protest some people were hoping for is not happening. NLSIU students have said they are not interested in collaborating with other NLUs, and at best can only give "moral support". The government is going to award Institute of Eminence status (which is better than National Importance status) to "outstanding sectoral institutions" like IIM Ahmedabad and ISI Kolkata (see link below). Thus, NLSIU would prefer that. Prof Sudhir Krishnaswamy can get letters of support from the Deans of Oxford and Columbia to support Eminence status, while KK Venugopal is likely to support it as well. NALSAR and NLUD are similarly not interested, because they believe that the top 3 institutions in the NIRF rankings can easily demand special status, but 20 NLUs together cannot demand it.

Thus, each NLU student body has to fend for itself and lobby separately.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/jun/08/government-okays-eminence-status-for-30-educational-institutes-1987505.html
Guest 3 Jul 2019, 12:53
+0 -0
The Registrar appointment committee consists of Taimur and the VC of CU (who controversially awarded an honorary doctorate to Mamata). The student must oppose this and insist on a transparent appointment procedure.
Guest 3 Jul 2019, 13:51
+4 -0
Actually, Taimur is out. NKC took charge today. He appeared quite promising in terms of his initial vision for the university, ticking most of the needed bits as discussed with students, including research output, outreach, rankings, foreign collaborations and alumni involvement. Of course, too early to say anything for sure. It's the action that would count, not words.