NLSIU Bangalore may have violated its own establishing act by launching the National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) admissions test without getting the sign-off of the academic council (AC), which we understand has not met since February of this year.
An authoritative NLSIU source told us that to the best of their knowledge, the AC last convened in February and at which point there had been no thought yet about NLSIU leaving the CLAT.
The issue was first raised publicly by Nalsar Hyderabad vice-chancellor (VC) Prof Faizan Mustafa, who has been a vocal critic of NLS’ decision to exit the CLAT and boot up the NLAT.
The reason this may turn out to be important is that under section 13(1)(g) and (h) of the National Law School of India Act 1986, which established India’s first national law university, the executive council (EC) of NLSIU needs the “prior concurrence” of the AC to make any regulation affecting “mode of enrolment or admission of students” and “examinations to be recognised as equivalent to school examinations” (see screenshot of Act above).
However, in its notification announcing that it was leaving the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and creating the NLAT, NLSIU had only mentioned the EC.
The AC is conspicuous by its absence:
This matter [the delays in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)] was considered at length at a Faculty Meeting at the University on August 6th, 2020 where the Faculty unanimously resolved that NLSIU needed to take all measures necessary to avoid a ‘Zero Year.’
The Executive Council of the University, at its 91st Meeting held in two sessions on 12th August 2020 and 18th August 2020 met to consider the matter and unanimously resolved to authorize the University to develop an alternative admissions process in the event that CLAT 2020 was not conducted on September 7th 2020.
Despite apparently “unanimous” agreement from faculty members to “take all measures to avoid a ‘Zero Year’“, the AC at NLS is larger than just its 12 faculty members, and also includes five Supreme Court judges and four Bar Council of India (BCI) members, as well as one advocate of the Karnataka high court (see full list below).
The EC includes six different Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI), eight different bar council members, including chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, two Karnataka government representatives from the education and law departments, and five other NLS faculty members.
And while the EC at many national law universities has significant powers over the other bodies, section 13 explicitly states that the EC “shall not make any regulation affecting the status, powers… of any authority of the School until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in writing on the proposed changes”.
It is not clear if that has taken place.
The vice-chancellor (VC) Prof Sudhir Krishnaswamy and the registrar Prof Sarasu Thomas are the only members who are part of both the AC and the EC.
Both of them and the university declined to confirm and respond to questions such as when the last AC meeting took place, whether it was legal within the Act to decide to hold the NLAT without EC approval, despite repeated requests for comment since Monday (7 September).
Mustafa had first made the points in an article on LiveLaw and in a YouTube video (in Hindi, at around the 3 minute mark). In the LiveLaw article, he stated: > In fact under Section 13(1)(g) of NLSIU Act, Executive Council cannot make any regulation on the ‘enrollment or admission’(emphasis added) to NLSIU without the ‘prior concurrence’(emphasis added) of the Academic Council.
NLSIU has not stated in its notification of NLAT that Executive Council in its meetings of August 12 and 13 was acting on the recommendation of its Academic Council. The legality of Executive Council’s decision for going ahead with NLAT without Academic Council’s recommendation/ prior concurrence may be raised by the affected students.
So far, NLSIU has provided no answers to these questions.
NLSIU academic council members
1 Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Indu Malhotra Judge, Supreme Court of India
2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Judge, Supreme Court of India
3 Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjiv Khanna Judge, Supreme Court of India
4 Hon’ble Mr.Justice Bhushan R Gavai Judge Supreme Court of India
5 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajjikuttira S. Bopanna Judge Supreme Court of India
6 Shri. Sunil Gupta Member, Bar Council of India
7 Shri.Desh Raj Sharma Member, Bar Council of India
8 Shri.D K Sharma Member, Bar Council of India
9 Shri.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Member, Bar Council of India
10 Shri Aruna Shyam M, Advocate, High Court of Karnataka
11 Prof.(Dr.) Sudhir Krishnaswamy Vice Chancellor
12 Prof.(Dr.) Sarasu Esther Thomas, Professor of Law & Registrar, NLSIU
13 Prof.(Dr.) V. Nagaraj Professor of Law, NLSIU
14 Prof.(Dr.) M.K. Ramesh Professor of Law, NLSIU
15 Prof. (Dr.) T. Ramakrishna Professor of Law, NLSIU
16 Prof. (Dr.) Ashok R. Patil Professor of Law, NLSIU
17 Prof.(Dr.) T. S. Somashekar Professor of Economics, NLSIU
18 Prof.(Dr.) Sairam Bhat Professor of Law, NLSIU
19 Prof. Babu Mathew Resident Professor, NLSIU
20 Prof. P.R. Chandrasekharan Chair Professor, NLSIU
21 Shri. Rahul Singh Associate Professor, NLSIU
22 Dr.Nagarathna A. Associate Professor, NLSIU
Comments
https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/2170800_Guidelines-for-Educational-lnstitutions-as-lnstitutions-of-Eminence-2017.pdf
Now once Messiah took over, this system was expected to be overhauled - presumably with a faculty review panel/academic committee to closely scrutinise re-evaluation applications on merits and so on. Of course, that would be the international best practice, and as such would have been welcomed.
But what Messiah did instead was to promulgate an officer order (@Kian please don't censor this comment, not names have been taken beyond the highest profile public figures, and these facts can be verified, including this office order) which said that "re-evaluation will be done by the Vice-Chancellor". Now how absurd is this? If Venkata Rao had been liberal with re-evaluation, at least the papers were being sent to BU law faculty at times, or some other teachers as the Exam Department could muster. But under Messiah, his holiness alone would go through each answer script and decide whether the marking was fair or not. How on earth is this anything but arbitrary? In fact, this is objectively a less-fair mechanism than Venkata Rao's system.
But we don't see Venkata Rao haters saying a word now, including aforementioned refugee. So, for all their long diatribes about law school accountability, this little cabal of tinpot dictators are a worse-off proposition for a public institution like Law School.
This situation has araised due tio failure of CLAT Consortium to conductexams in time and many students have become sick of it.
Also please consider the impact of these delays. For a lot of students they get a very short window of time to get something like this. Most Indian parents can not afford to and do not want to encourage a gap year. Students will be pushed into sub par but more expensive private universities if not marriages and work for those who cannot afford the first option. This is more true the longer they keep postponing an entrance exam. Getting into an NLU should be the starting point for building the rest of your life, if people don’t even get a shot at it because of continuous delays and the consortium won’t even consider alternatives- that is a serious problem. Why won’t people recognise that inaction is an action and has consequences?
A zero year means that people’s life plans will change. They will be forced to go to private universities where they have to pay exorbitant fees or to other public ones where they cannot hope for the same kinds of opportunities. A zero year means that poor students who would have otherwise escaped their circumstances by getting into law school will now likely be expected to work (at least part time) to start sustaining their family immediately or be expected to get married so families do not see the girls as burdens- stuff they could have avoided if they got that golden ticket because what parent is going to stop their kid from going to nls?
So yes. For many people - a zero year means that the sky will fall down.
If I may quote: "[b]Dr Ranbir Singh, Professor of the Department of Law, was selected Director, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad[/b], on deputation [b]for a period of three years from October 10, 1998 to October 9, 2001. [i]His term of appointment as Director, NALSAR University, Hyderabad, was extended for three years beyond October 9, 2001, by the president of that university[/i][/b]. Consequently, he applied for a grant of extension for three years. But the EC at its meeting held on October 8, 2001 had resolved that Dr Ranbir Singh should be granted extension in deputation for only one year, that is up to October 9,2002."
The additional requirement of the extension being carried out an year in advance wasn't raised then.
Reappointment of Vice-Chancellor (FM) was done by Chancellor. There is prior convention in this regard. If this is by-passing the statute, then the Chancellor (Chief Justice of that state) is to be blamed. And it is his/her order that needs to be challenged; presumably, in front of him/her.
By-passing statute at the level of the Vice-Chancellor in relation to method of in-take of students is unprecedented. There is no convention here to save Sudhir's act.
But aap to Bhakt hain. Kaise samjhenge.
The question here is not these reappointment but NLAT. It is like blaming Nehru for current mess.
However, he is now going overboard with his comments on the NLAT controversy. The NLSIU Academic Council had met along with the EC in August and the agenda items included the possibility of a separate admissions process this year owing to the COVID-19 situation. Sudhir and Sarasu are not responding publicky because the matter is sub judice now. Sudhir Krishnaswamy had repeatedly proposed alternatives to the Consortium, but the senior VCs took him lightly. Apart from problems with scheduling, NLSIU is in a difficult financial situation owing to the rampant corruption during the RVR years. The online trolling is so one-sided that people don't want to investigate verifiable facts.
Prof. Mustafa should now stop his public posturing and play the role of an older statesman to broker a practical compromise for this year. Ideally, he should persuade both NLU Delhi and NLSIU to join CLAT.
........................
1. Given that the AC wasn't informed or it's consent sought. And given that the EC did consent but it seems that the quorum was met via those 'below' Sudhir in the hierarchy.
2. I don't think that the SCI can suspend Sudhir, or that they would even give two hoots about the writs filed.
3. However, in an ideal rule of law society, it ought to be the full EC which should 'ask him to go on leave' and seek the Registrar (who herself seems implicated in not standing up)* to table a full 'fact-finding' (of emails to and fro the office of the VC) report in front of the EC. The idea, again in an ideal world, should be to find out who all knew (and when) that they were skirting past administrative safeguards and violating laws and by-laws in the process. Thereafter, the EC may move forward with taking a decision.
4. Anyhow, I don't believe any of this will happen. I, personally, believe that Sudhir will get away in the same fashion as every other VC before him has gotten away with so much at these NLUs.
5. The problem, in my opinion, is that he will have hurt the 'hope' we all had in the alumni - which was an extension of our belief that 'we'll change the system.' You only get one chance at first impressions.
...
* It needs to be noted that the registrar has been 'in the system' much longer than Sudhir. Yet, it seems, she did not attempt to stop him. This shows a certain flaw in character - a failure to stand-up for what is right. Therefore, maybe a committee on unimpeachable outside folks might be needed to get to the bottom of this.
- CLAT keeps getting postponed and the Bengal govt keeps imposing random lockdowns. Covid cases are also rising. An online test is the best solution.
- JGLS has set a precedent. Yes, they had fewer students but what matters is the ratio of proctors to candidates. If the ratio is constant, then even an exam with 1 million candidates can be held online.
- The access argument is irrelevant now since the requirements have been modified. Also, let us not be deluded. An exam in English will always be elitist. I doubt if Bhojpuri-speaking villagers in Bihar living in mud huts give CLAT, but even if they do they have ZERO chance of making it. Wokeness has now descended into stupidity.
- Faizan Mustafa is no one to teach Prof Sudhir constitutional law. He has no worthwhile publications, just makes YouTube videos and is a graduate of a TLC. Prof Sudhir is a Rhodes scholar.
- Even if I entertain Faizan Mustafa's comments, there is enough flexibility in the regulations (and general principles of law) giving emergency powers to the VC during a global pandemic.
- Regarding Rao, please see Prashant Reddy's tweets.
1. Accept that NALSAR does as rigorous a job as it can, and that it isn't too bad in this country; or
2. NALSAR isn't rigorous and that is the only reason why tere jaise graduate hue hain wahan se.
Ab bhai tu dekh le.
I don’t much care for moots or vacation schemes- they’re all privileged activities which only the few elite students actually engage in- not a decent metric for how the entire batch is being educated.
You know how I know stares are falling? When was the last time nalsar produced an anup? Or a chinmayi? Or even a Swethaa ? Where are serious scholars in any batch? How many people in your batch can even read a 30 page article without having a complete breakdown and acting as if they have been victimised? Ask any nalsar teacher( I have many friends within the faculty) or even ask anyone in law firms ( again - many friends at the SA level) they will tell you the quality has slipped. Nalsar students now are mostly faff and self righteousness. There is a reason that there has been so much attrition with faculty leaving nalsar since faizan started- academic standards slip every semester, and students don’t mind. The writing is on the wall. But you keep talking about those ten people who managed to make something out of themselves/ scam their way up.
My only argument is that when student quality has been so low- it’s not appropriate to rely on who the students prefer as VC to judge whether or not a VC is good at their job.
And, what do you mean by 'serious academic'? Just want to understand why you seem to include Sudhir in it, and maybe exclude FM (sorry, not sure about the second part)?
Is it, what you mean by 'serious academic' is a 'hard taskmaster' - [i]not that there's anything wrong with that[/i] (Seinfeld reference).
I am all for 'hard taskmaster' - which I believe Sudhir is and FM isn't (though I don't see him as a 'populist' either like Venkata Rao). But, I want him to be called that and not a 'serious academic' - I do not believe his publishing record warrants that acclaim.
Second - look at the grounds that even the students who wanted Sudhir based their preference on- they wanted better quality education- someone to bring back some rigor to law school.
Look at why students prefer faizan - cause he listens to them - which is essentially code for he lets them get away with pretty much anything.
A serious academic is someone who holds their own work and that of their colleagues and students to high standards. Nalsar does not even have a functioning academic review committee ( which Sudhir brought back in nls). I attended one of faizans courses as a student - he barely even took any classes- it was a complete sham. He allows his faculty to get away with scan courses. He pacified his students with sops not all legitimate demands.
If you have been following social media lately- Dalit students who asked for adjustments to the academic plan- because faizan wanted them to take weekly tests- were ignored and shut out of the conversation. How is that being a good administrator?
The only point of difference I suppose is our definition of an 'academic'.* I feel it is what one 'produces' at a personal level should be considered, you seem to stress on 'production at the institutional' level.
If I were to guess, you are from the 2013, 2014 or 2016 batch. Did i get that right? Maybe even 2009 or 2010 (but I doubt a lot of them post here).
* We can have different definitions.
You can see that he is well respected in the academic community by the fact that he was asked to be BR Ambedkar chair at Columbia law school. And by the fact that leading academics on the oversight board sought him out to work with rather than these other so called “experts”.
How much of this does faizan have? Why not measure apples to apples? Is the Supreme Court citing someone really that rare? I have 5 friends who have been cited in various judgments- mostly for work they did as students. In any case wouldn’t Sudhirs consultancy work with the Kasturi Rangan committee and in many of clprs projects show the same kind of utility?
Here’s another metric- go ahead and track how many people acknowledge Sudhir as having mentored and helped them in their journal articles/ book introductions- do the same for faizan- you will see a marked difference.
In any case sheer number of publications does not mean anything unless you can vouch for quality. And Sudhir unlike other senior tlc experts actually writes all of his own articles rather than having students and RAs write them for him.
If you look at faizans portfolio- really look- the tone and language used in each article is different - that itself- and grapevine gossip indicates that his juniors do most of the heavy lifting in these pieces and need his name to get it published.
You can spin it however you want. But no one is going to buy that faizan is even in the same ball park as Sudhir.
Also - given the course is conducted in English, offering the entrance exam in any other language makes little sense. Unless one of the law schools (CNLU) starts offering courses in Bhojpuri, those poor villagers will be stuck with having to learn English.
https://twitter.com/Preddy85
[quote]The next year CLAT will get bumped to another law school which may go back to the old format. NLS should not get back until the Consortium can guarantee some basic standards no matter which law school is handling it.[/quote]
[quote]I wouldn’t be so hasty in accusing Sudhir of being shady.
[/quote]
[quote]If people were really so worried about exclusion they would have asked for CLAT to be conducted in languages other than English and formats that did not cater to only the urban students. So please forgive me if I don’t buy the virtue signalling over NLAT being exclusionary.
[/quote]
https://twitter.com/Preddy85/status/1303377208023580673
https://twitter.com/Preddy85/status/1303637961536282624
Also more shots fired http://livelaw.in/columns/nlsius-home-proctored-nlat-how-far-equitable-transparent-secure-162634
[...]
1. Gadhe, SCI judgment ne kaha tha.
2. And, do you have any reasonable cause to believe that required clearances weren't taken?
Also, bragging about nls having people at higher positions is rich, when you account for the fact that they went 12 years without a competitor in the field. Talk about NLS students now and whether they're still dominating, why don't you?
The VC who thought he's a class apart/
Was prone to treat students as if they're dirt/
He turned backstabbing into work of art/
In the charade his Regi too played her part/
But he failed to read the in-house law/
His predecessor found that to be the last straw/
But his bhakts been tryin' to get the latter snubbed/
Either that or TLC they'd get him dubbed/
The fiasco meanwhile been reducin' the pool/
The only loser in the end being Law School!
https://twitter.com/kingslyj/status/1303917506659262464
The Case of the Speluncean Explorers padha hai kabhi? Lon Fuller bhi bahut role play kiya hai udhar. Kya problem hai usme?
I always found this "excuse" of blaming WB Govt dodgy. Sure there is no clear rationale for the spattering of lock downs that have been imposed by the WB govt. But lock downs on Sep 7, 11 and 12 were decided in late August. After the GoI came out with new Unlock guidelines, the WB govt held consultations with GoI and re-confirmed the lock down dates in early Sep.
The foregoing shows that between Aug 27 (when NUJS VC supposedly informed the CLAT Consortium) and early Sep, the NUJS VC had opportunity to get in touch with WB Govt or even include the CLAT Consortium leadership (Messiah included) in the discussion.
If Messiah is being queried by FM, can he or CLAT Consortium answer the following:
1. Did NUJS VC and/or CLAT Consortium show that they exchanged formal communications with the WB Govt and those were declined, summarily dismissed or ignored?
2. If the NUJS VC and/or CLAT Consortium is in possession of such records, kindly produce them
3. It is very likely that the WB govt never received any communication from the NUJS VC and/or CLAT consortium. Actually, did any of the Angry VCs even suggest having a formal discussion with WB Govt so that Sep 7 lock down is rescinded or diluted? Will NUJS VC and/or CLAT Consortium apologize for their lazy approach?
Messiah's actions and omissions are clearly out of line. But I refuse to believe that WB govt would have remained unreasonable had NUJS VC and/or CLAT reached out. Now, we will never know because NUJS VC did not even bother.
Imagine NUJS by the end of his tenure.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/neet-2020-bengal-government-cancels-lockdown-on-september-12/story-JBG2eWDVHb7A6Nm4pcMkpN.html
I find it interesting that BCI has maintained a studied silence. It was one of the original signatories in the initial CLAT MoU and almost always drones on how legal education is its fief and made so much better through the years, especially through another supposed "fief" NLSIU.
While NLS is bringing out the big guns, why is CLAT/RVR playing junior league?
But as FM mentions, NUJS VC informed CLAT. So, it is not a stretch to expect that he should have also suggested a conversation with the state govt. More so when he has excellent "contacts" who got him the job in the first place.