A second writ petition seeking to cancel the NLU Jodhpur-organised Common Law Admissions Test (CLAT) was heard in the Allahabad high court today.
The petition was filed by sixteen-year-old Class XII student Tanaya Thakur through her mother Dr Nutan Thakur, who is a social activist, journalist and writer from Lucknow.
They claim that the CLAT paper was in “utter violation of its specifically announced Pattern of the CLAT Paper for Under-Graduate Programme” and “deliberately and blatantly deviated from this announced syllabus and pattern” - complaints which were first reported by Legally India on Sunday (13 May).
The writ petition No 2965/2012 against NLU Jodhpur was heard before the bench of Justice SS Chauhan today (24 May). The court would serve the college with the petition by fax, with the next date of hearing fixed for 28 May, said Tanaya Thakur in an email to Legally India.
Tanaya Thakur said: “There are two main grounds for filing this writ petition. The first is that the organizing Institute, NLU Jodhpur had said that general knowledge section will only test students on their knowledge of current affairs, i.e., matters featuring in the mainstream media between March 2011 and March 2012.
Similarly for legal aptitude it said that this section will test students only on legal aptitude and not any prior knowledge of law or legal concepts. If a legal term is used it will be explained in the question itself. But in contradiction to what the organizing Institution said, at least 22-25 sections in the [general knowledge] GK section came much beyond the current affairs period. Similarly there were many legal terms in legal aptitude section that was not defined.”
The petition has prayed for the high court to:
Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent, National Law University, Jodhpur, which is the organising Institution for Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) this year (2012) to quash the entire all India entrance examination for admissions to their under-graduate degree programme, viz. Common Law Admission Test for LLb entrance as being in utter violation to their own specified syllabus and the specific declarations and announcements made in this regards and to conduct the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for LLb entrance once again, this time adhering to its own syllabus and set of declarations and announcements.
A petition by three other CLAT takers was also heard in the Delhi high court today.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I will tell you what can one exect from Jodhpur - One can expect it to churn out top quality advocates, to give the one of the best placements in the country to its students, to win top intl and national Moots {Currently 2nd in MPL( though i doubt u know what it is)}. Also if u are student here then u would knw that we have are vry good Administration.
True that there might have been error in the CLAT paper but ‘CLAT committee’ is to be blamed which means all the NLU’s together and not not NLU-J . And a college should not( and could not ) be judged by one error .
But i bet you are a jacka** looser who senselessly without using knowing anything just has to comment.
Do you realize that the paper setters have 'not bothered' to care about the guidelines for paper-setting. Even if some static GK questions can be justified, how would you justify 'Assertion-Reasons' questions based on Legal Knowledge. I am a practicing advocate, and I do not remember off the cuff what Section 95 of IPC would be without referring the Code.
Now that you have done a shambolic job, atleast stand up and own it. Your administration should be finding ways to crease the faults in the best manner possible, instead of trying day in and day out to show students as "IDIOTS" for being unable to answer questions based on Legal Knowledge and Static GK.
NLU-J has stood upto the EXPECTATIONS and has very successfully fullfilled its puropse and of giving quality legal education which was asked by genius above.
Secondly you are living in a utopian if you expect them to apologize for the paper which was out of course. You would know that if you had given had given the CLAT 2011 paper. IT WAS A PAPER WHICH WAS UNATTEMPTABLE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT OF 2 hours.
On an average 20- 30 questions were left , even by the people who had got 130-150. And ALL OF THEM , without exceptions. ( think about an average paper taker then)
Now this leaves
Granted the paper was within the AMBIT of guidelines issued, but this isnt this PAPER faulty when 30 marks are left to fate ? Dont you think it was a equaly big fiasco ?
But no petition was filed because the DISADVANTAGE WAS COMMON TO ALL and similaely here all it is common and not only our dear petitioners. ( So i guess no one out of 26,000 need not have known Section 95 of IPC, they just need some good luck)
I do agree with the point that the pattern might not have been adhered to by the paper setters. The point off contention here is not that whether there was a fault or not but WHO IS TO BE BLAMED FOR THIS FIASCO ? NLUJ or CLAT COMMITTEE ? NLU-J might have been the setter of the paper but the even the other college members had equal share of responsibility to cross check whether the final paper is in adhernce to the guidelines issued by the committee. So therefore it is a 'COllective failure'. So, all the unwarranted ruckus should be directed towards the CLAT COMMITTEE and I am just defending MY college from being maligned by some idiots ( refernce to J.D).
Okay @law aspirants let me know if you want anyone of us to help you with explanation of word "petition". I heard legal words were not explained in CLAT and that is in dispute here.
Moving to your next point, I am not fighting to get into Jodhpur ..... That battle ended for me last year itself when i got into NLSIU ...... And just because I am already in law school, it does not mean that I can't see an inherent flaw in the question pattern.
Lastly, refuting your third point, people did get a different set of question papers with some different questions in Current Affairs.
And oh yes ..... the question of dispute does not arise. All one has to do is look right into the mirror(In this case, the CLAT website).
Nice chatting with you,
Buh- bye :)
1. No one from NLSIU calls it "NLSIU"
2. No one in NLS uses such crappy English as you did.
3. Please stop kidding here.
Cya.
although i try not to call it 'NLSIU' myself; i find 'The First and Prime Law School [TFPLS] has a nicer ring.
In this case of the 16 year old girl, her scores should be seen and it should be clarified whether she is doing this STUNT in an altruistic manner or just because her paper was bad.
And as far the legal terms are concerned, our newspapers cover a lot of legal info. and terms specially. I realized this only after joining a law school and reading papers from a lawyer's perspective. Terms like Locus Standi, Modus Operandi, Prima Facie etc. are in common use in newspapers like TOI whereas if you read The Hindu, you'll find REAL TECHNICAL stuff pertaining to law.
A good preparation for CLAT is an imperative and a slight surprise cannot withhold the success of any serious candidate because there will be surprises in every national level exam. Don't believe me, ask the Civil Services Guys.
It's because there's an option of doing BSc. LLB(Hons) too. Go back under the rock you live. facepalm
I'll go back to my rock, but that wont change the fact that NLUJ course (and their CLAT paper) is a sham at best and a scam at worst.
somebody made a comment about NLU-J's BSc Degree helping students become IPR Agents. As per the Patents Act, S.126 prescribes minimum education qualification as "a degree in science , engineering or technology from any university". Is NLU-J's B.Sc degree equal to a B.Sc (Physics) or (Maths) or (Chemistry)? Extremely doubtful. If the NLUJ BSc degree is being accepted as ok under S.126, then the Institute of Patent Attorneys is at fault. Keep in mind that for every 1-2 "science" papers taught, there is a law paper that is not. If NLUJ really thinks that its science course is at par with a BSc (from say St. Stephens or Xaviers), they should go to AICTE and make the course a six year course with enough rigour so that a B Sc LLB can debate mathematics with a B Sc from St Stephens. Until that happens this degree is hoodwinking students, parents and employers alike. I don't see NLU J catching up with NLS, NUJS or NALSAR if they continue this tomfoolery.
and as for the blame game on the CLAT 2012 paper, it is a known fact that the law school organising the CLAT does so pretty much on its own. There is no collaboration at all. If there were this fiasco would not have happened. For now it is safe to say that NLUJ is nmot competent to set the CLAT (no reflection on students though). I wonder who will conduct the exam next year? CLAT 2013 students are likely to be even more unfortunate.
it is accepted as a science degree under S. 126.
go sue the whole world if you have to, nothing will change that.
Despite being from one of the other national universities that has been named here, I can assure you that NLUJ's degrees are quite well-sought after and recognized, especially in the field of IP. Now whether that renders all national level IP law practitioners liable or sub-standard is your opinion, of course, and you are entitled to the same.
I cannot understand why this person at #10.2 believes I have said all national IP practitioners are substandard. My point was that regulators and scrutinisers are so used to the real B.Sc. that when a fake (or nominal) B.c (like NLUJ's) comes along they cannot distinguish it.
In order to appreciate just how ridiculous NLUJ's idea is, think of how this could be extended. Today a law student gets a "B.Sc." by learning a dozen totally diverse set of science subjects at a law school. What is to prevent that from becoming a B.Tech LL.B. tomorrow? Or an MBBS LLB ? The only reason NLU J cannot do that (at present ) is that there are strong medical (MCI) and engineering (AICTE) regulators who wont tolerate this nonsense. Unfortunately any satish, madhav or ahmed can award a BA or a BSc degree in India.
apart from that, taking your point (1) - blending science and law 'not well thought'. try to intern under a patent lawyer and then experience the incredible handicap of not knowing the science. one has to differenciate between enantiomers polymorphs, organic structures and hence what they study is very relevant. thats why some B.Sc. students also go ahead and take the IP specialization later. so on relevance alone, it is actually quite relevant. and when you compare it to B.A , even you know that while pol sc , history are related to law in some way since most of them are in a societal context, knowing modern history, independence struggle, origin of state theory and marxism doesnt help you in law either. so relevance is a weak argument either way.
as far as diverting time and resources goes, that can be said about anything. a good faculty expects some amount of respect, you cannot expect someone who has a Ph.D. to be given sidey treatment.
i dont get your wrong side of the law argument, if a law school can give degrees such as BA,BBA why not B.Sc.
lastly, recruiters know the difference between a committed a science program and a law cum science program, so let them decide. nobodys getting 'fooled' here.
[Dude, a B.Sc. hons is by its nature a diverse area of study. just like B.A. requires study of all arts subjects similarly does the B.Sc. degree require study of physics, chem and bio. atleast as far as chem is concerned, the faculty is highly renowned.]
I don't see the point. As a matter of fact, all B.Sc. (Hons) courses in the country (say at St. Stephens) consist of one honours level science paper and two pass level science papers, to be selected from Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. These three papers are studied for three years. But that is stating the obvious.
[apart from that, taking your point (1) - blending science and law 'not well thought'. try to intern under a patent lawyer and then experience the incredible handicap of not knowing the science. one has to differenciate between enantiomers polymorphs, organic structures and hence what they study is very relevant. thats why some B.Sc. students also go ahead and take the IP specialization later. so on relevance alone, it is actually quite relevant.]
The idea of a five year professional law degree was that - a professional LAW degree. Until NLSIU was set up, law aspirants had no option but to spend 2-3 years doing a BA / BCom / BSc degree in letter and spirit and then spending three years on the LL.B. Even the five years BA LLB courses at government colleges were essentially a clumsy aggregation of a BA Pass course for the first two years followed by a 3 year LL.B. course. NLSIU demonstrated the value of cutting down on the arts / allied papers to the bare minimum and focussing on law throughout. If students want to be IP agents (and to be honest, I don't see too many grads even from NLUJ wanting to do that) they should undertake a degree in science either before or after law - so that they are qualified for that. The hotch-potch of science papers taught at NLUJ is in no way giving the students even 30% of the science education that my hypothetical St. Stephens BSc Physics (Hons) grad has got. Therefore I see no reason why they should stand on the same footing as far as the "science" degree is concerned.
[ and when you compare it to B.A , even you know that while pol sc , history are related to law in some way since most of them are in a societal context, knowing modern history, independence struggle, origin of state theory and marxism doesnt help you in law either. so relevance is a weak argument either way.]
It is not my case that law students should do a BA (Sociology) instead of BSc (Physics). None of the premier colleges do that. Take NUJS's BA LLB course. Except for 5-6 papers (out of 50) on Pol Science and Sociology, the rest are ALL law papers. B
[as far as diverting time and resources goes, that can be said about anything.]
Evading the question.
[a good faculty expects some amount of respect, you cannot expect someone who has a Ph.D. to be given sidey treatment.]
No idea what the point here is?
[i dont get your wrong side of the law argument, if a law school can give degrees such as BA,BBA why not B.Sc.]
A superficial similarity as far as BA is concerned. The BA (of the BA LLB at NUJS (say) is not an attempt to give a student a BA level education in any arts subject. Except for those 5-6 papers out of 50, everything else is pure law. If there was a job that required a BA (Sociology) and an NUJS-ian claimed he was qualified, I would say that was as idiotic as an NLUJ grad claiming he is a "science" graduate. The BA in the degree programs of the top law schools is a BA just in name only and no attempt is made to prove otherwise. Those guys cant get admission to an MA course by citing their BA LLB. The BBA at NLU-J is no less silly than the BSc.
[lastly, recruiters know the difference between a committed a science program and a law cum science program, so let them decide. nobodys getting 'fooled' here.]
Having met many recruiters, I do not share your view. Very few of them actually bother to check out the subject list an compare with what is being taught in other places (at least places with whom NLUJ seeks to be compared to). As an NLU, they expect the NLU-J degree to have the same amount of rigour that is there at say NLSIU. If only they knew.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first