The second day of the National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) hearings in the Supreme Court is due to start around 11:30am today.
We’ll be liveblogging as we had yesterday, when it was an action- and also humour-packed hearing.
LiveLaw and Bar & Bench are again livetweeting the proceedings, we’ll be blogging them here live.
11:35: Senior advocate Arvind Datar is to start for the respondents (NLS), rebutting the points of the petitioners and the consortium yesterday.
Datar said he would address the following points.
1. He is starting off with the executive council vis-a-vis the academic council.
2. Could NLS have conducted a sparate
3. Safeguards in place for the exam?
The bench added, a fourth point: that a large number of candidates have been deprived, violation of article 14.
5. Regarding Locus - Datar says that Venkata Rao has no standing (though the bench notes: even if the first petitioner doesn’t, the second petitioner (either Venkata Rao or the third petitioner who who joined as intervenor from the Jharkhand high court?), clearly would have locus).
11:38: Datar claims the first petitioner (the parent of a purported Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and NLAT candidate) has no locus because they could not find a record in the NLAT of them having applied for it.
The former NLS vice-chancellor (VC) Venkata Rao should not have locus either, since he’s neither a member of CLAT or NLS.
11:44: Now discussing whether NLS had power to exit the CLAT consortium.
Datar says that the consortium wrote a letter to NLS yesterday asking for transfer of more than Rs 4 crore CLAT funds from former treasury / secretariat on NLSIU campus to Hyderabad.
Bench responds: CLAT has to be held - leave the CLAT as is - these are all consequential actions because CLAT has to be held.
11:49: Datar now on second point on the issue of AC vs EC at NLS.
There are no regulations at all from 1987 from when NLS was founded specifically about admissions, apparently, says Datar, and the entrance exam was therefore not to do with the academic council (AC), which is responsible for maintaining the standards of education post-admission.
12:02: Going into some history, Datar cites examples of the AC having made recommendations in the past (such as to join the all India admissions test), but only for the executive council (EC) which has the sole authority to execute such recommendations.
12:06: Bench says: Once you are a member, you are bound by the rules of the society? Can you unilaterally go contrary to those rules?
Datar responds that the bylaws of the society are a contract. But in case of force majeure, the crux of the matter, can I make different decisions?
The bench asks again: Did you inform the consortium, the CLAT - if the examination is postponed, we are going to give our separate exam?
Datar: Yes, we have recorded this a number of times, he claims. From July we have been telling them, please don’t postpone it beyond September, I can’t take it.
12:08: Datar: There is a provision in the bylaws for any member to exit. NLS has not exited. But the CLAT consortium has said you are no longer associated. If they tell me, shift all my records to Nalsar, what does it mean?
Bench: But only after you left, did the consortium ask you to transfer the records to Nalsar…
12:15: Datar is listing examples of NLS not having agreed unanimously with the consortium always.
He’s mentioning each of the many CLAT postponements now.
12:18: Datar is mentioning several examples of when NLS registered its disagreement in consortium meetings, apparently.
However, the CLAT consortium kept press releasing that the decisions to postpone were unanimous.
12:20: This notification was not issued with my authority, NLS vice-chancellor (VC) Sudhir Krishnaswamy, sent a message to the consortium saying that he “strongly objects” to the notification having had his name and signature attached.
12:22: Datar says that NLS has said several times, please don’t postpone it beyond September, I can’t take it.
12:26: Why postpone to 28 September, asks Datar, just because of lockdown in West Bengal on 7 September when the CLAT was to be held? Why not just hold it on 8th?
Bench asks: but the consortium order was signed by VC Krishnaswamy?
Datar says: No, that was an email copy (i.e., that it had not been signed by Krishnaswamy).
12:29: Datar talks about how performance of contract became impossible for NLS (the consortium was a society under the Societies Registration Act, he says, arguing with the bench a little about whether it was a cooperative society).
12:39: He’s going through the bylaws of the society in more detail now.
I want to make it clear, this year we don’t take CLAT but next year we will go back. This year the only issue is my zero year problem.
The bench is asking for a conclusion.
The rules are in the nature of contract, and under nature 56 of the contract act, if I can not comply with my contractual obligations - frustration - I can take a stand, the bylaws reserve that right.
12:40: Datar adds: Petitioners are alleging that I have breached the regulation. What is their right to say so, when they violate their own general body rules and have a meeting without all the VCs and postpone to 28 September.
Also, what is their right to shift the headquarters to Hyderabad?
The bench says: The second issue (regarding moving HQs to Hyd) is not at discussion here.
12:41: Datar addresses purity of the examination process.
Bench: In your affidavit you have said you have no doubt and have taken steps.
Datar: We can’t on basis on affidavit and counter-affidavit say the exam was bogus.
Bench asking Datar to wrap up before handing over to senior advocate Sajjan Poovayya.
12:42: Datar mentions the NLS earlier affidavit before the Delhi high court by Krishnaswamy, at which he had sworn that a home-exam was not tenable.
Bench: Can you state, no now it can be done? Your affidavit was 25 August?
Datar asks for some time, since it’s a critical point.
Bench: When allegations of paper leak was there, but said it does compromise secrecy.
Datar, promising to finish in 5-10 minutes, says: Filed affidavit on behalf of the CLAT. Once decision taken to postpone to 28 September. My EC had told me if permission to postpone beyond 7th, has given permission to take measures.
Bench says: EC never said, hold a separate test. Just given VC the power to make a decision.
Live Law tweeted:
Datar: Affidavit in Delhi HC against home-based exam was for basis of #CLAT as it involved 80,000 students. Justice Bhushan: But your EC never said you have to hold a separate exam. They only delegated the power to you to take a decision. https://t.co/uHBFvnAJLc
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) Thu, 17 Sep 2020, 12:46
12:45: Datar says Lordship got admission that we admitted that whole thing was impossible now we’re doing it, and now seeking to counter it.
12:47: Datar reading from counter affidavit of NLS.
12:51: Bench: Fact remains that students who have prepared for 2.5 hours examination, before 10 days they are now at the last moment told to prepare for a 45 minute examination.
Bench: The issue is with respect to preparation.
Datar promises he’ll answer the question.
12:53: Datar: What I’m submitting is the exam should be at home based on time constraints, due to my zero year problem.
But syllabus and question pattern is same for students who have prepared for CLAT.
Only from 2 hours I’ve shrunk it to 45 minutes.
12:54: Bench: Mr Datar, we have given you 1 hour, exam time was less than 1 hour, now your time is over.
Hilarity ensues.
12:56: Bench asks: Only 23,000 appear only. Why only 23,000 appear, according to you?
Datar: 78,000 were there, all of them had the chance to appear for 150 rupees. Some persons may say, I may not qualify for NLS, I don’t know, I’m not able to answer that question.
12:57: Bench: Because of shortage of time they were deprived of making application?
Datar: No no no. They had 9 days to apply, more than enough time to apply. 25,000 students applied. I have given details of how before and after the exam, I put so many checks and safeguards.
According to affidavit, there is going to be forensic audit.
The organisation that has conducted, the most leading science and technology cover, one IIM has conducted home exam from this institute.
We chose from 4, selected best institute.
Biggest audit firm in India will conduct forensic audit.
12:59: Datar says that a zero year is not a bogey. If your lordships don’t permit this exam, the entire year is gone.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan had said 150 engineers took the exam just to see how bogus it is.
An open site has been made by Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan to collect complaints.
13:01: Datar: We can detect through cameras and artificial intelligence, we have enough safety measures to ensure the cleanest possible process.
Datar is done, Poovayya, is up.
Sajjan Poovayya for Sudhir Krishnaswamy
13:02: Poovayya appears directly for the second respondent, VC Sudhir Krishnaswamy.
We have not conducted this exam without certain rigid measures to prevent malpractices. It is not a joke, Poovayya says.
He is saying that my exam is of a lower pressure - of around 1 minute per question - whereas CLAT has 150 questions in 120 minutes.
No child can complain you are giving me more time for lesser number of questions, he says.
13:04: Poovayya points to the rejoinder: law school says, yes there have been some malpractices.
I will straightaway say, it has come to our notice that when we conducted this exam we have detected certain malpractices, we have zero tolerance, but it will not affect integrity.
It is true that when we look at an exam that is taken from a house, juxtaposed to our traditional practice of an exam at a centre, 2 submissions…
1. In a physical exam, invigilation takes into account physical exams.
2. In a remote exam, invigilation is not limited to - a small part of the invigilation is after the exam and data is collected.
Once I log onto to my system, everything that I do, including the pattern of my keystrokes is recorded for data, for example. If Sajjan Poovayya in first 35 minutes has slower keystrokes and all answers are right, the intelligence that is gathered, can find this out, because no uniformity in keystrokes, he says.
13:08: Poovayya continues: During the exam any monkey can try to cheat the system, more students do so possibly, that is the order of the day. Either during the examination itself, or post examination, artificial intelligence (AI) tracks the behaviour:
a) when switches it on
b) duration of each window switch incident
He explains, I can switch between between windows on teleconference, even in this hearing - the lordships would not see. But he can switch between windows.
One of the largest firm will do a forensic audit to see if Sajjan Poovayya has switched between windows.
c) answer behaviour pattern. Like I said - first 20 minutes all answers wrong, second 20 minutes someone prompted the paper - all answers right. Maybe a 3rd party prompted the right answer (after an exam paper was leaked).
d) candidates’ keystroke data. When I start typing my lord, the exam answers.
Our traditional wisdom of a question of a leaked paper does not apply for online: 1st there is no single question paper for everyone. But the question, when the question are issued.
Proctoring is physically done, to see if somebody coming in.
Can have longer cable and another keyboard attached? Poovayya claims that this can be detected by the browser-based software.
13:13: Poovayya: I (Krishnaswamy) put it to the entire faculty of the university, which is even better than the academic council and took a unanimous decision that home-based exam is the best method.
It was not my private decision.
13:15: He’s talking about the leak of the paper during the retest now. But the answer key was not out yet.
But he’s saying it could not have gone out: he managed to download the entire question paper, 20 minutes into the exam.
Once the question paper is out, what is the issue of a leak?
13:17: Poovayya now talking about postponements of CLAT: The only body to take decision of postponement, nobody other than 22 members, are able to take decision which impinges privileges of 22 members.
P: The executive committee of CLAT consortium has no authority to take decision on behalf of consortium, unless that power is delegated to the executive committee.
He’s now referring to the bylaws. The work of the CLAT executive committee should only work by the power delegated to it by the governing body, he says.
13:19: Poovayya: The exec committee of 7 out of 22 members did the first postponement. NLS did not protest back then.
P: The next postponement, also by the exec committee, NLS did not protest.
P: The next delays in August, to an indeterminate future date, Krishnaswamy objected to the notification. An early version included Krishnaswamy’s signature, but a later version had his signature removed.
P: There is not one other university in the country that has a trimester system (Sankaranarayanan has withdrawn that NLIU Bhopal does, says Poovayya).
Poovayya did not defend the merits of such a system but admitted that as many of the counsels arguing (which are NLS products) knew such a system to be “hell”.
13:24: Poovayya: When the decision was taking on 28 August to postpone the CLAT 28 September, NLS VC was implementing the decision to implement decision taken by his EC and faculty.
13:26: Poovayya: We have received report of malpractices. No doubt.
P: In my proctoring, I have put in a system, we will disable those candidates. If those candidates have a problem, they will sue me, I have no problem.
Requesting NLS to come back, please lead us if you want to: Narasimha for CLATs
13:29: Senior advocate PS Narasimha, on behalf of the consortium, says that the offer from the consortium stands and has been in the very beginning: that NLS can come back to the consortium.
Narasimha says: We are requesting NLS to come back, lead us if you want to.
N: What we are all concerned here is to save the institution.
N: Today the question is of the very existence of the institution: what happens to this institution. All national law schools come together, pool together their statutory authorities, and have created this.
N: Today one of the members says, we are again a private Karnataka institution. That’s not the way your Lordships will look at it. Your Lordships will look at it as institutions amenable to writ jurisdiction.
13:32: Narasimha says: The bylaws of the consortium
Bar & Bench tweeted:
Narasimha: After the judicial intervention and efforts of all the stakeholders of coming together, the consortium was formed for the purpose of holding a common entrance exam for the students https://t.co/63m80ZOORR
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) Thu, 17 Sep 2020, 13:33
13:36: Narasimha: Even assuming there was dissent by NLS with consortium (though he says there is no documentary proof of this), NLS did not give any notice of its intention to conduct its own exam.
N: Making concluding remarks. The matter pains me, I was involved from the very beginning, pre-consortium and post-consortium, a lot of difficulties faced.
N: Coming together of all these people together is one thing. Creating a common exam is another thing. Creating a consortium another. And ensuring NLUs come together.
N: Just imagine the situation: one of the premium colleges says, please permit us and [hold our own exam].
N: It is not in the nature of a club or an individual contract or agreement of the parties. All of them observe a very important public law duty.
Everything will collapse, says Narasimha, implying what would happen. It is an unnecessary and unfortunate incident, he concludes.
13:40: The bench is keen to close, says it has heard everything.
Nidhesh Gupta responds for petitioners
13:40: Nidhesh Gupta wants to respond to points by Datar, says they are important factual points regarding intricacies of the CLAT consortium’s bylaws.
G: Also contesting points in Krishnaswamy’s affidavit, that the NLS VC has never claimed in his affidavit that he had not signed certain orders of the consortium. Has he said anywhere it is not my signature?
G: Regarding the argument that NLS has autonomy, he says it is still subject to work within the frameworks you have agreed.
Bench is asking senior advocate Nikhil Nayyar, who appears for the Jharkhand high court intervention by five students.
Nayyar up for Jharkhand petitioners
13:45: Nikhil Nayyar: Wants to argue for five minutes with a few additional points. Refers Lordships to their own NEET judgment (in Christian Medical Colleges case from April 2020).
NN: In that the Supreme Court noted 5 features of a standard test.
The NLAT should also comply, he says.
NN: When the first press release came in December 2019, students had five months.
NN: All those submissions about ECs and other bodies are “hypertechnical” submissions, how are students concerned with that?
NN: One very important feature in NLAT - CLAT says negative points for wrong answer; the NLAT has negative points also for no answer.
NN: Now notified that three questions are wrong and have been withdrawn.
NN: Regarding zero year… what is the answer for a zero year? What is the real concern for zero year? It is a loss of Rs 17 crores of fees annually that they are concerned about.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan with final right of reply
13:52: Sankaranarayanan: Explain to your lordships who are the members of the academic council today. Justice Indu Malhotra and four other judges of the Supreme Court, three members of the Bar Council, and members of high court advocates.
GS: In the bylaws, specifically mentions in the Act of NLS, clause 13 deals with who the members are. It’s not a hierarchy as Datar had argued. Executive council will execute, but AC has definitive powers.
Bench: Judgment on Monday.
Monday, 21 September, is of course, three days after the date (18 September) that NLS had announced on its admission page that it would start its term.
The final results and admissions were scheduled for 15 September originally, and were updated to be scheduled for 16 September (yesterday), according to the NLS admissions page (see below).
The physical CLAT, so far, remains scheduled for 28 September.
Live blog over and out.
Comments
[quote]Datar: I am only saying that I (the VC of NLSIU) am not associated with the NLAT at all. Yesterday they wrote to me saying that I need to transfer the funds of Rs. 4 Crore.[/quote]
Can someone kindly elaborate?
- move to a semester system
- reduce class hours
-push a course off to year two
Any of them make sense from a pedagogical pov- you have not being paying attention to how courses are designed. It’s a deliberate act. Students and faculty need time to internalise materials and to teach it. Simply focusing on the math leads to bad pedagogy- ask nalsar teachers and students how their semester is going because of FMs nonsense if you don’t believe me.
The case that GShanks is making (that the exam was shit and that creates an Art. 14 issue in terms of access/cheating etc.), is one that Datar is still to respond to. But on the CLAT having some god given right to have its proxies approach the Supreme Court to enforce its bye-laws, Datar has them covered.
On the question of whether NLS could have held the exam, his answers are sound (that's the only other point that is amenable to writ jurisdiction).
There are no minutes from August onwards, and there is an e-mail from Sudhir from August identifying his protest. So unless they're claiming the e-mail wasn't sent, there's basis for that claim. Given that the notice was changed from "unanimous" to not, the e-mail appears legit. Where's the falsehood.
Where's the obligation to tell the Consortium in the NLS Act? If there's some obligation in the Consortium bye-laws, we come back to contractual dispute. Where's the writ remedy?
His argument for why the contract was frustrated was force majeure. And again, if he hasn't sufficiently made that case, the remedy lies in a breach of contract suit, not a writ! And the CLAT needs to file said suit, not a proxy. Anyone wondering why the CLAT hasn't filed this? Why do the other VCs want to hide behind an RVR petition?
On plan, there's an attachment to his affidavit explaining how with the results releasing this week he can do the academic calendar. it doesn't work if they release next month. So no, by saying he has a plan if CLAT happens on 7th, he isn't saying that there's no plan if it happens any later. That was in response to a specific question at the EC. Your statement is laughable and baseless (and also not how logic works)
The fact that the EC authorized him to take steps is sufficient in law. Just because you don't like the result, doesn't mean that the delegation was insufficient. Where is the requirement that the EC must specifically say "conduct a home exam"? Also, apart from separating from CLAT, how else is the VC supposed to take steps to avoid a zero year? If they meant re-jig the academic calendar, they would have said that no? Or is the requirement of specificity limited to some decisions and not others?
NLS allowed ALL those who reported glitches to appear in retest. Even the students who didn't face any problem got a chance to improve their marks & chances of reaching NLS. Whereas those honest students who didn't face any glitches and didn't sent any fake report of glitches were deprieved of opportunity to reappear and improve their marks.
If this is what passes for legal analysis- geez
this was very engaging. thank you for your efforts.
Of course, it will set a bad precedent in several other areas of law (consti, contract, etc.) and may harm CLAT, with NLS opting out permanently.
I am still struggling to understand the rationale behind NLAT. [b]What is the endgame for SudhirK?[/b] The rumour about INI is bogus, INI for NLS is not contingent on NLAT. NLS filed the INI paperwork last year, but the file is stuck, NLAT will not push the file forward. It will take a high level ministerial attention to move the file and unfortunately outside the LI echochamber NLS does not have that kind of bureaucratic clout. Or is it to show that CLAT is dysfunctional? or is it to concentrate more power of CLAT onto NLS? was it a gambit which failed? The situation is like the hypothetical Nixonian madman who actually pressed the button.
There’s a reason we don’t push off entire subjects to the next year- each academic year is already hard enough. Enough students already fail or cheat because they cannot keep up with courses as is. Adding to that workload will only cause further problems. Think about FMs logic - why even have any classes this year then? Why not turn it into a four year degree? Or a three year degree? These problems will only get worse with remote/ online learning.
There is a steep learning curve when one enters law school - you need to be able to learn a lot of skills really fast. The average first year doesn’t know how to read cases or think about the law or track how the law has evolved over time. They barely know how to make notes for lectures. They definitely do not have experience writing projects / doing research on their own. This is not even taking into account problems students with limited abilities in English face. To further demand that they learn all this in a truncated time frame just because the consortium cannot be arsed to figure out new ways to conduct a test is unjust and will lead to worse outcomes for students - whether or not they are in a trimester system.
It’s not simple math. And FM is just wrong. The entire faculty of nls understand that even if wannabe law students don’t.
p.s. I also sincerely hope that the commentator is not actually a faculty member from NLSIU, because to see one dismissing the genuine concerns of law aspirants by dubbing them "wannabe law students" would indeed be a sad reflection on the institution.
How much did conducting the exam itself cost? Hiring an expensive firm to check for cheating, vendors for proctoring and conducting the exam- all of that could not have come cheap.
These allegations are easily made but truly what proof is there of “enrichment”?
What more people need beyond actual emails documenting NLS’ protest? Do people think the EC with 4 Sitting SC judges + 1 former judge , the BCI and all the rest are dumb enough to blindly listen to SK about a Zero Year? They’ve been at NLS far longer than SK and also know exactly what RVR is made of. The EC knows what’s up they knew the Consortium was holding NLS hostage.
Consortium had everything to conduct CLAT and yet did not. The only reason they’re going ahead with 28th now is to prove a point. If NLS hadn’t left, even 28th wouldn’t be happening.
I cannot understand why Sudhir is so hostile to other NLUs. In fact, it was MP Singh who fast tracked him t professor at NUJS and made his appointment at NLSIU possible in the first place.
Thirteen years ago, Shamnad called him out for what he was - a disgruntled and insecure soul who had no recognition in the academic community. See this:
https://spicyip.com/2007/03/mashelkar-committee-report-and-industry.html
This is what happens when you get a politician to run a University.
And it’s not true!
I have worked closely with Sudhir- over several years. And sure he’s not got happy manners, but he isn’t the person portrayed by the above comment at all. He is, at his core,a fundamentally warm, decent, and good person.
He has nurtured and inspired several students over the years. Look at the number of people who rely on reco letters from him every year. Look at how well respected he is among scholars across countries.
He has had very friendly relationships with several colleagues whether it is clpr or any of the universities he has worked at. He has helped several underprivileged folks (including yours truly) build their careers. There was a reason so many people celebrated when he became the NLS VC, including his students through the years, here was a hardworking straightforward man finally getting what he had earned.
I can only speak for what I saw when I worked with him- and he stands up for his colleagues and cares about them and is invested in building a team far more than most folks do. He treats people with kindness and he corrects himself when he is wrong, he really does look for every reason to assume the best in people.
He has had life long relationships that have stood the test of time. The man is still best friends people he knew at school. How many of us can say that? He married his college sweetheart and they have a wonderful family. Sociopaths who step on people to enrich themselves usually do not have such strong ties.
He has known Datar for several years now, and he’s still defending him. Datar isn’t a stranger to Sudhir at all, he doesn’t need his eyes opened. He has known sidharth chauhan for several years - and he’s still defending him. Several of his former students still hold him in high regard. The faculty at NLS voted unanimously to go down this route/ there is no evidence they were threatened or misguided - at all.
The people who know Sudhir aren’t abandoning him at this time. it’s anonymous trolls on comment boards who are calling him all sorts of names - and people who like to virtue signal on twitter (who have never had any experience in the tough choices one makes when one is heading an institution/ who are jealous of his success at his relatively young age) who are criticising him.
I won’t speak Ill of the dead - I will say that shamnad was a person - and he got a lot wrong in his life. Look at the folks he mentored- one [...] guy after another- all talking about increasing access and diversity [...]. This worshipping shamnad only to curse out Sudhir by comparison has got to stop.
Asking NLS graduates who have benefitted from the scholarship scheme to help pay it forward is hardly a crime. there are things the university can afford and things it cannot. money is a real thing in the real world and I have yet to see one viable accusation of Sudhir being corrupt, unlike some of these other VCs. In any institution he has worked in his entire life, there has never been any allegation of financial irregularities under his watch. At all. There has never been any accusation of academic malpractice- no plagiarism, no preying on young people and exploiting them into ghost writing for him, no publications in shady journals. He hasn’t gotten me too-ed either.
Can the same be said of people who are dragging him, personally, to court?
I do not agree with every decision Sudhir has ever made. I do think they should have planned better for the NLAT- they should have separated from CLAT when it became clear that political concerns other than the best interest of students and institutions were prioritised. They should have had more centres, more notice, more proctors. More better, more better, more better.
I will also say that I think if Sudhir was a more diplomatic man rather than he is- less blunt and straightforward than he is- this whole thing would have panned out much more smoothly. But at the core of his flaws here are honesty.
And I’m not a coward . I don’t hide behind anonymous accounts to tell him all this. I have said this and so much worse to his face. We have had heated disagreements during the time we worked together and after.
And even I can see that the man is fundamentally good. That his main goals in life are to leave the world a better place and not to feed his own ego or whatever.
At what point are you becoming just an angry mob and not seeing the very real person you’re talking about?
he has the courage of his convictions, but he is not a bully. If you have genuine good faith problems with the way you’re approaching a problem and you bring them up - I’ve seen him often change his mind. Particularly if it is in student interest/ trying to improve the quality of education.
I often disagreed with him - and so many of those times I managed to get him to see my side of things.
I will say this - if you’re not coming from a good faith place- if you’re coming from a place where you don’t want to put in the hard yards- if he suspects that maintaining high standards is not your motivation - then he can quickly and effectively shut you down. And I actually had no problem with that. Deliberations are only fruitful if they’re conducted in good faith.
You’ll see that flexibility with NLAT as well - they worked so hard to reduce technological requirements to take the test, when people complained of glitches they gave them a retest- if that’s not flexibility what is? Would clat have been as flexible? I think not.
I genuinely do not think the nlat was designed intentionally to exclude people - I think it’s a by product of Sushir and nls being pushed up against the wall by the refusal of the clat consortium to heed their concerns. And they mitigated a lot of the diversity concerns stuff. I would argue that an android phone is easier to access for most people rather than a test centre especially with halted public transports and increasing infections everyday. Undoubtedly this is a bad situation, but they did work in good faith and do the best they can.
I’m sorry what institutional enrichment? The institution is flat broke- that wasn’t on Sudhirs watch it was on his predecessors. And we don’t know how much these vendors cost- it seems like they have gone to quality vendors - 150 rupees is a cheap exam- nls is not clat and it’s not filling it’s coffers unnecessarily.
I think the personal attacks are completely uncalled for and honestly - the inaccuracies if it just bugs me, they clearly are written by people who don’t know this man at all. It’s toxic.
he has the courage of his convictions, but he is not a bully. If you have genuine good faith problems with the way you’re approaching a problem and you bring them up - I’ve seen him often change his mind. Particularly if it is in student interest/ trying to improve the quality of education.
I often disagreed with him - and so many of those times I managed to get him to see my side of things.
I will say this - if you’re not coming from a good faith place- if you’re coming from a place where you don’t want to put in the hard yards- if he suspects that maintaining high standards is not your motivation - then he can quickly and effectively shut you down. And I actually had no problem with that. Deliberations are only fruitful if they’re conducted in good faith.
You’ll see that flexibility with NLAT as well - they worked so hard to reduce technological requirements to take the test, when people complained of glitches they gave them a retest- if that’s not flexibility what is? Would clat have been as flexible? I think not.
I genuinely do not think the nlat was designed intentionally to exclude people - I think it’s a by product of Sushir and nls being pushed up against the wall by the refusal of the clat consortium to heed their concerns. And they mitigated a lot of the diversity concerns stuff. I would argue that an android phone is easier to access for most people rather than a test centre especially with halted public transports and increasing infections everyday. Undoubtedly this is a bad situation, but they did work in good faith and do the best they can.
I’m sorry what institutional enrichment? The institution is flat broke- that wasn’t on Sudhirs watch it was on his predecessors. And we don’t know how much these vendors cost- it seems like they have gone to quality vendors - 150 rupees is a cheap exam- nls is not clat and it’s not filling it’s coffers unnecessarily.
I think the personal attacks are completely uncalled for and honestly - the inaccuracies if it just bugs me, they clearly are written by people who don’t know this man at all. It’s toxic.
https://sja.nujs.edu/newsroom/2019/04/12/nujs-alumnus-awarded-the-gates-cambridge-scholarship
How about covering this Kian? https://thewire.in/culture/justice-rocks-police-violence-music-poetry-the-wire
Given that NLIU (also having a trimester system, like NLS) has not in any manner indicated:
- difficulty with its own academic calendar, if CLAT is extended beyond a particular date; or
- the need to be released from the consortium contract for this year, like NLS; or
- the need to hold a separate entrance exam to be able to have an new batch of students,
one should ask whether the argument of force majure for NLS should hold at all.
Assuming that the argument of force majure falls, what basis does NLS have to justify:
- conducting an entrance test outside of the CLAT;
- contest the actions of the consortium to oust NLS; and
- contest the consortiums decision to shift the headquarters, documents and funds of the consortium out of NLS control.
Please leave aside emotions of law school affinity and see this entire episode for what it actually is. One mans ego steering an institutions decisions and actions hell bent on proving supremacy over all others. Such ego is evident from the following affidavit:
I (Krishnaswamy) put it to the entire faculty of the university, which is even better than the academic council and took a unanimous decision....
Such affidavit also trys to mislead the court by implying that a decision of 7 members of the 22 members is not the proper way of taking a decision. One must remember that the original 7 members of CLAT collectively are the only executive body of the consortium with the power to take all decisions with respect to CLAT and membership of the consortium.
You son is lying to you to cover up his bad performance in the exam. No answer was available with the pdf. Plus, the order of questions and passages were different for all candidates. Take care.
Do you even know what a 'leak' is? lol
Without casting doubt on the academic standards at NLSIU, it's not in any way superior to the other top ones. This whole trimester thing is quite overrated. While it isn't easy, is also isn't quite as bad as NLS students make it out to be when they're humble-bragging about how 'smart' they are. The same syllabus that the students cover in 3 terms there is done by other students at NALSAR, NLUD etc. in two semesters. So the workload isn't a whole lot more and in fact, they get more frequent breaks in between compared to the other semester-system law schools. They don't cover anything extra.
You clowns keep shouting 'high standards' of NLS but that isn't really the case because if it were so high then even people outside the top 40 in every batch should be getting placed at top law firms, and that seldom happens. The proportion of people getting LLM offers, scholarships and vac schemes are the same as in the other top 5 NLUs, if not lesser. Get your facts straight before showing off.
Earlier students of NUALS and RGNUL (missing anyone?) went to HCs for fee reduction. Also any update on the special audit initiated by the Punjab govt against RGNUL?
By the way heard that a Prof from Hyderabad is to be "placed" as VC of CNLU.
No glitches etc with CLAT exam centres yet?