NLSIU Bangalore vice chancellor (VC) Prof Venkata Rao is due to retire on 10 May 2019 and a search committee has been formed to find his successor, though it has not yet met, according to authoritative sources.
The search committee is led by former NUJS Kolkata VC Prof MP Singh, as well as senior advocate and attorney general KK Venugopal, and senior advocate Arvind Datar.
Rao has been in charge at Bangalore since 2009, and was re-appointed in 2014 for a five-year term.
His tenure has seen students bemoan an exodus of talented faculty and a scarcity of permanent faculty hires.
We have reached out to Rao for comment earlier today, and will update this story when we hear from him.
However, NLS looking for a new VC is, more likely than not, bad news for national law schools.
At least four national law schools are currently without a permanent VC or leadership:
- GNLU Gandhinagar director Bimal Patel’s term is over, though he’s continuing in the position for now;
- HNLU Raipur’s VC Sukh Pal Singh resigned in October 2018, after student hunger strikes,
- at NUJS Kolkata and CNLU Patna students’ had rejected Prof Ishwara Bhat.
At HNLU, NUJS and CNLU, former judges are now holding the fort, which is surely far from an ideal situation in what are supposed to be academic institutions.
Awful timing
But NLSIU needing a new VC could not come at a worse time.
First, there is a serious scarcity of top management talent for law schools, according to people on VC search committees we’ve spoken to in the past.
The truth is, most applicants for VC jobs are awful, and most positions don’t carry enough remuneration nor kudos to encourage movement of top academics from abroad or even domestically.
UGC regulations also require VC candidates to have at least 10 years of full-professorship experience (though exceptions have been made in the past), which would exclude a large proportion of Indian legal academics - particularly ones who may themselves have graduated from NLUs.
Then, this is a problem of timing: top administrative talent will no doubt try and apply to Bangalore - the oldest NLU and therefore arguably the most prestigious of NLU head-honcho jobs - leaving other NLUs and their students in a lurch.
With Rao only demitting office by May, that will likely mean that hopeful VCs who might have applied to other NLUs, may prefer throwing their hat in the ring to wait for NLS to finish its process.
That said, many state governments are perfectly capable of slowing down their VC appointment processes to a snail’s pace by themselves.
There seems to be little sign of constructive process in VC appointments at any of the above institutions (although, by way of silver lining, Nuals Kochi did manage to find a new VC recently last month, with Sunny KC).
Finally, there’s the fact that many VC positions are poisoned chalices: governments hover over your head with demands, while denying you any money to improve matters. And most modern-day VCs can’t even expect their deification by students anymore, who are as likely to oust them than build them a statue.
Most NLUs right now don’t even have the administration that they need: it seems unlikely that many will get the VCs that they deserve any time soon.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
All that such people have done is just used (rather misused) the institutions for their own gains at the cost of students'/institutions' future (specially the person that u r referring to). If the Indian legal education (NLU set up) has to have some academic credibility, even financial recovery must be ordered against such "Jumping Jacks".
The question which the committee also needs to ask I think is how much time they intend to devote to "administration" and how much to newspaper articles, youtube videos and television appearances.
I am sorry to say but NLS has set a very bad example by becoming the most preferred law school among the law aspirants without having and even bothering to have equally successful academics. The myopic policy of hiring people on contract basis right from the beginning so as to have control over them is the main culprit. The success of NLSIU is not because of a path breaking idea or unique pedagogy. It’s rather a coincidence. It owes it success to Manmohan Singh or Narsimharao who liberalized the economy in 1992 and the first batch graduated in 1993. As the economy grew after liberalization the demand for lawyers in the corporate and commercial sector increased too. The talent pool got better and better every year so got the reputation of the school and the legal education and profession too but that did not happen with the academics part of it. Had the law school started in the 70s as planned initially by the relevant stakeholders I suspect it would have been such a success.
The difference was that by making a 5 year course we tapped or trapped talent which was ready to join law because it could provide them good jobs which was not the case before liberalization. But did the quality of teaching improve? Procedurally yes substantively no. The effect of which was that now the students had to spend more time in class rooms than in the college canteen. But the kind of the scholars used to teach in the traditional universities, are rarely seen in the NLUs. It is not to undermine the competence of the teachers in NLUs but caught in the rigmarole of project presentations, continuous evaluations, setting multiple question papers frequent invigilation duties they do not have the right kind of environment to grow. The transition from 3 year to 5 year model is just cosmetic.
“Panchi samajhate the ke chaman badala hai, sitare samjhte the ke gagan badala hai, lekin haalat ki khamoshi bayan karati hai lash wohi hai sirf Kafan badala hai.”
Now is the time for the premier law school to make a paradigm shift, by improving the quality of academics in such a manner that it becomes an example for other law schools to follow. Only such a person who has the capability to bring not cosmetic but fundamental changes, which will have lasting impact, that the institution is known not for the number of job offers the students have on day zero or winning the Indian moot league but the kind of scholarship it generates within and outside the classrooms, the others i.e. placement and winning competitions, will follow automatically, shall be the next Vice Chancellor. Since those NLUS which have done well in NAAC grading are given autonomy to frame their own rules for recruitment the archaic UGC rules shall not be a hindrance.
This kind of approach was adopted by Prof. PK Tripathi in the 1960s during his tenure as dean of the DU law faculty and the university reaped the benefits for decades. At one point of time e.g. only in constitutional law it had scholars like, Prof Tripathi himself, Prof. M.P. Jain, Prof DK Singh, Prof M.P. Singh Prof. Erabi and Prof. Baxi (who did not get much chance to teach constitution). Similar approach was adopted by Prof. M.P Singh at NUJS during his tenure. More importantly there is a need to institutionalize such an approach to avoid extreme fluctuations once the regime changes.
An ideal VC should possess administrative as well as scholarly capabilities, which are not common and a combination of both in one person is really rare. But this country which has seen Vice Chancellors of the like of, Ashutosh Mukherjee, Madan Mohan Malviya, PV Kane and Zakir Hussain to name a few in the pre independence era shall be able to find a worthy candidate for its leading law school. I hope the committee will be able to give NLS its Dean Pound it has been waiting for, since its inception!
VC’s position is akin to the captain of a cricket team. He/she may not be the best batsman or bowler but can take the team forward at times with sheer management skills, at times by sheer performance as a player and generally by a combination of both. You cannot make someone a captain because he is a great or even the greatest batsman or a great manager of people alone. In a world eleven someone like Clive Lloyd or Imran Khan would to be preferred over a Sunil Gavaskar or Sachin Tendulkar.
#Flagroad
You read it here first.
But the next VC, assuming the incumbent won't be re-appointed, will have a herculean task ahead to restore NLS to its original glory.
Among the NLU alumni teaching in India. Sudhir Krishnaswamy is the only who meets the UGC requirement of having served as a full professor for at least 10 years. Other competent persons such as Arun Kumar Thiruvengadam (APU), Sarasu Thomas (NLSIU) and Mrinal Satish (NLU Delhi) have only become full Professors in 2017 so they are unlikely to be considered this time. They will be great choices in the future, especially given the larger number of NLUs in existence now. Among the existing pool of NLU VCs, Dr. Kamala Sankaran appears to be a good choice since she has a good academic and administrative record. Dr. Faizan Mustafa has a lot of visibility in the media and enjoys good relations with several sitting Judges. However, he has built a good team at NALSAR and it does not make sense to leave at this stage. Dr. Krishna Deva Rao might emerge as a compromise candidate, since he is a friendly and fair person.
Irrespective of who becomes the next NLSIU V-C, there are some corrective steps which need to be taken immediately. The first step should be to fire the several incompetent ad-hoc teachers who simply cannot deliver in the classroom. The good ones such as N.S. Nigam, Kunal Ambasta and Rashmi Venkatesan need to be regularised as soon as possible. The second step should be to bring back the interested alumni who are presently teaching at other domestic institutions. People like Arun Kumar Thiruvengadam, Mrinal Satish, Aparna Chandra and Sidharth Chauhan need to be brought back with due recognition of their teaching experience. This will then attract interested alumni from older batches, some of whom are currently teaching in foreign universities or pursuing Ph.Ds. There are several good alumni from other law schools who may also come if fair conditions are offered. The third and the most important step should be to restore diligence in academic practices. Populist practices have damaged the institution's credibility over the past decade. My former classmate, Sidharth Chauhan, lost his job for speaking out against them. Our alma mater needs to undergo a meaningful reconstruction over the next 4-5 years.
1. First off - your concerns w/ Venkata Rao centralising administration are not off the mark. Certainly, it's not ideal. But do look at the alternative. It's great when you have credible second-line support systems. But lacking that, sheer arbitrary, self-serving members within NLS have to be guarded against, in the interest of the Law School community itself. For instance, multiple UG Council Chairpersons have ranged from incompetent, to lethargic, to even downright malicious (Hegde/Sarasu/Rahul Singh). God forbid, Lizzie's unreasonableness ever go unchecked. I remember your concern about re-evaluation of courses - people shouldn't just pass without doing the work, but her poor intellect, lack of broad knowledge and stubbornness was evident for all to see. So is it any surprise that people viewed VC intervention to override this as welcome relief?
That's not to say, that Venky tenure hasn't been relatively easy to get through. But if the alternative is ideologically-immovable or incompetent, having a fairly reasonable man in charge at the top to see reason is preferable. The solution to this is long-term reform and good people willing to play second-fiddle to the senior administration (which many aren't willing to do, ego/sensitivity?)
2. Issue of faculty ad-hocism - certainly problematic, yet the solution isn't to ride roughshod to appoint those you think merit it. As good as they may be (Kunal and Nigam, by all accounts yes; Rashmi - questionable), GoK is waiting to jump at opportunities at interfere. One of their reasons is that Law School isn't following the recruitment-roster rules that apply to Universities in Karnataka. If Venkata Rao had appointed someone (even if it is a Kunal), many existing ad-hocs (of questionable merit, but domiciled in Karnataka) might run to court to overturn it, and get themselves tenured. This risk was explicitly conveyed to the SBA and the EC at the time. So Venkata Rao's solution of keeping on a lot of ad-hocs should be seen as a delicate balancing act, to keep the state govt and its politics away. Agreed that the good ad-hocs shouldn't be taken for granted (and can't be expected to hang around thanklessly), but the situation is more complex than you like to make it out to be, AND certainly less malicious.
3. Ridiculous double-standards: Every example of so-called successes belie great shortcomings - Jindal (for all it's funding and foreign faculty, the quality of the average student population leaves a lot to be desired; do 400 students in a batch exist to subsidise the resources handed on a platter to the 10 that show potential?). Ranbir Singh's iron-fist administration of NLU-D is certainly problematic, as is the (allegedly casteist) favouritism that permeates that institution. Sure, the good press it manages through Delhi networking helps a select few stakeholders (Anup/CCG etc), but all of this has come at the cost of front-line education. The quality of the average instructor is way off the heights occupied by Mrinal Satish and co. There is zero effort at NLU-D to build an institution that can continue to thrive, post the current administration. The whims/fancies in Dwarka can put even the worst of Chauhan's accusations about Nagarbhavi to shame. As for arbitrariness, the reputation of Amita Dhanda at NALSAR is as problematic (and Lizzie-esque) as it gets. Egos don't get things done, reasonable people do.
4. SidC's hypocrisy - as much as you like to claim that Law School under Venkata Rao is a cesspool, the facts don't actually reflect that. The institutional investment (research centres, fundraising, collaborations etc) have been on the uptick [just because the echo-chamber of so-called "law school circles" only see Facebook events by Project 39A and CCG, doesn't mean that's the only ones doing good work]. Student output shows no sizeable drop. Some faculty are excellent, most are average, and some atrocious. Venkata Rao has tried to bring incremental change, rather than upset the apple-cart (eg. electives despite the rigid opposition of many senior, yet questionable professors).
Maybe the rate of improvement leaves a lot to be desired, but it's certainly no downward spiral as you continuously whine. By my last count, you've cross-posted this very article on SO MANY different fora (LinkedIN, Facebook, alumni groups, SBA groups). You might claim that this is all in the interest of the institution, but it's getting harder to trust your bona fides. You see every flaw in Law School (some fair, many unfair), but have little to say about Faizan's tenure at NALSAR? Is his administration leagues ahead? Not demonstrably, except perhaps in the case of recruitment of faculty (maybe the political scenario in Telangana is more favourable), of which you are a beneficiary. Maybe you've learnt your lesson, that it doesn't achieve much to scream from the rooftops about deviation from your idealised state of affairs? Rather, that being constructive and contributing (while being sufficiently critical where needed) might be a better strategy? Many people, including excellent faculty like Prof Ghosh [who deserves credit for finally having the backbone to see sexual harassment investigations to their logical conclusion, despite institutional lethargy and lenience] and recent SBAs [which managed to get through radical/transformative reforms in academic and governance matters] are a testament to this. Both credit Venkata Rao's support (tacit generally, but active when needed) to push through what is otherwise a bureaucratic labyrinth infested with ambitious/entitled people (old profs, VC aspirants etc) and political motivations. Your silence about NALSAR's similar shortcomings [like average teacher quality] are disappointing. Worse, they suggest a petty vindictiveness on your part.
I'm no apologist for Venkata Rao - he has let a lot of things slide, which shouldn't have been the case. But he's still relatively better than most alternatives; and his tenure has left Law School in a better place than he found it. I hope Law School manages to get an outstanding person to be the next VC. But I also hope that she/he knows that the business of university administration is as much a political game as it is about ivory-tower academia. Otherwise, we'd be in for a world of sour grapes. As for you SidC, I really hope that I'm wrong about your motivations and that you do mean well. But having seen you in action (on this issue) over the past few years, that's a tough ask.
You appear to be better informed about developments at NLSIU over the last 5-6 years. For instance, I would obviously not know much about the internal decision-making related to the transition towards electives in 2017 or the handling of the sexual harassment complaints that led to the enforcement of punishments (albeit after a long delay). The institution (and other NLUs) have handled comparable issues in the past. I can recount several examples of comparable decisions that were made during my time as a student (2003-2008). The codification of examination regulations was a 3 year process which culminated in 2009. It took patience, circuitous negotiations and consensus-building to get there. An earlier example is the framing of the SBA Constitution itself which took almost a year of open meetings held throughout 1999-2000. There were also some difficult decisions made in cases involving disciplinary action for plagiarism, consumption of narcotics and sexual harassment. Some of these decisions were unpopular with students at the time, but were nevertheless enforced.
Are you denying the proliferation of academic malpractices under the present incumbent? Re-evaluation through the use of personal discretion (in hundreds of instances between 2010-2013) is only one of them. There have been several others such as frequent declarations of non-instructional days, blanket extensions for project submissions, mass condonation of attendance shortages (even in cases where students had barely attended 50-60% of the classes) and non-scrutiny of fake medical certificates leading to a substantial number of students writing 'First Attempts'. I remember invigilating end-term exams for subjects such as Corporate Law and Intellectual Property where less than half the class had shown up. Ask anyone who taught or studied at NLSIU between 1988-2009. These malpractices were unheard of or were at best marginal during the first two decades, let alone enabled by the leader of the institution. Just ask the Examination Officer about the number of re-evaluation requests filed between 1988-2009 and compare them with what happened between 2010-2013. If you are still claiming that academic standards have not deteriorated over the past decade, you are obviously ignoring the substantial evidence that is easily available. You cannot defend all of this by simply saying that the present incumbent was cancelling out the arbitrariness of individual teachers. That is a trivialisation of the entire issue. I heard a similar argument coming from the SBA office-bearers in 2012-13.
I also take serious exception to your attempt to portray Dr. Elizabeth in poor light. What you have said might be the opinion of a few people. A majority of alumni across batches will vouch for her qualities as a teacher, especially her close scrutiny of term papers and an early introduction to critical thinking. Yes, she can be temperamental at times, but that does not justify the discretionary use of re-evaluation powers to overturn her judgment in scores of instances. In any case, the misuse of the re-evaluation rule happened across the board (including teachers who are known to mark liberally) and it is quite improper on your part to try and justify it by naming one teacher. For the record, I have not faced a similar problem as a teacher at NALSAR in the last six years.
Now let us come to your view that I am being hypocritical in not speaking about similar concerns at other law schools. You are once again ignoring easily accessible evidence. Last year, we wrote a report on the working of the NLUs (submitted to the Department of Justice) where we have documented several common and disparate problems encountered in their administration. Faculty hiring and retention is the number one problem for all the NLUs. We have openly acknowledged difficulties faced at NALSAR owing to the location of the campus, inflexible UGC norms that discourage lateral entry from practice areas and the lower-pay scales when compared with some of the private law schools. We also have a practice of weekly faculty meetings where we discuss our internal problems threadbare. You will in fact find that both Prof. Faizan Mustafa and Prof. Amita Dhanda have been very open to engaging with criticism, be it on academic or administrative issues. In fact, their decision-making presents a far better model of incremental change when compared to most other NLUs at the present. Yes, we do have our fair share of under-performers, but we have also been hiring regularly, both in permanent and contractual positions.
I am a little surprised that you are describing me as a 'beneficiary' for having been regularised here. It happened after four years of ad-hoc service and the clock starts from scratch after that point. There are several gaps and grievances on part of students (as they should be), but I am quite prepared to discuss them openly. So that part of your comment appears to be more of an 'ad hominem' criticism rather than a serious reflection.
In comparison, NLSIU has not had permanent appointments over the last decade. To describe the status quo of having 20 plus ad-hocs (some of them for 6-7 years) as a 'balancing act' is clearly misleading. Do you not see that it is simply a strategy for saving money and exercising control over the teachers in contractual positions. Your inputs about the domiciliary preferences as an obstacle to regularisation are also not verifiable since I have heard other reasons from members of the NLSIU EC itself. In any case, NLSIU is not covered by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2017 which has subordinate legislation that prescribes the domiciliary preferences. It would be great if you can shed more light on this aspect. If this is indeed an obstacle to regularisation, then even the next V-C will face serious difficulties.
Also, what was the point in bringing up NLU Delhi and JGLS? Sure, they have their own set of issues to deal with. The discussion here is about the past, present and future of NLSIU. As an alumnus, I am interested in seeing that it gets the best possible academic leadership. Sharing this story on multiple platforms does not make my actions mala fide. What motivations could I have in the nature of meaning harm to anyone? For the record, I have met RVR a few times since Feb 2013 and all of our conversations have been cordial. I have asked him about his children and he has asked me about my career growth. This is obviously not personal. It's just that the place deserves a better academic leader.
Lastly, you are constantly portraying incremental change as a virtue. That is perhaps the only point where I will agree with you. It is possible to do so with honesty and diligence. That is not ivory-tower idealism as you put it. It is the precondition for academic life. I have gained a lot from my education at NLSIU and its' future is worth fighting for, even if it has to be done from a distance. The content of your response suggests that you are either a recent graduate or a current student. In case you are inclined, I am happy to be corrected and to continue this conversation directly.
1. Yes, I am better informed of the ground realities at Law School since your departure. But being as someone who was there both during and subsequent to your time as a teacher, I think I have some relevant insight into this.
2. I am sure that the efforts of the SBA to effect transformative changes (like the Constitution and the 2009 Rules) were hard-fought victories, against archaic mentalities and entrenched interests. All I intended to illustrative was that RVR isn't this short-sighted, self-dealing crony you make him out to be. The easy decision for him to take would have been to sit back, and let the regressive guard (Ramesh, VVK, Odisha-reject Nagaraj etc) obstruct. But he actively encouraged the SBA and the alumni-faculty who wanted to reform our academic goals/methods - doing so, he actually put the institution-first (something you're loath to even consider is possible for him).
3. I challenge your assertion that academic standards continue to fall with no end in sight. Yes, re-evaluation is more prevalent than before. That is, per-se, not a bad thing. Where did faculty get this divine right of infallibility? The processes of evaluation are certainly in need of streamlining with clear guidelines. But, they have been a response to serious and credible apprehensions of the student body. You blame me for naming Lizzie in isolation. That was not the intention, but only an illustration - if you want more examples, here they are: [...] (who has had a reputation for incompetence, ignorance, and scholarship for decades, yet was allowed to run riot, indulge in arbitrary marking etc; but his safe job meant that no one could bring him to heel; now at least, students who weren't provided reasons/justification for marks awarded had some avenue for redress), [...] (while being a man of integrity, still suffered from absurd pedagogical hangups like verbatim reproduction of drafts), [...] (who would say to students that he "didn't feel like marking an answer"), and so on.
As I said, some clear guidelines on how re-evaluation is done is needed. But that is not to extrapolate that RVR is undermining academic integrity - it's the rigid and arrogant mentality of some faculty members that's at fault. A set of 40 people passing History on revaluation is an (admittedly) sub-optimal solution to a graver problem (of a teacher running amok through the institution, with arbitrary and ever-changing expectations, that range from absurd to inflexible, all the while being blissfully ignorant of her own inconsistent ideological bent). By the way, I have it on good authority that Prof Elizabeth's course now deal exclusively with "radical feminist history" of India, to the exclusion of practically any other historiographical study of Indian (legal or otherwise) history. This is directly at odds with the outcomes that the course is supposed to achieve (per the UGC), but Lizzie's response in open class is "the Academic Council can try to tell me what to teach, but I won't listen. Who are they to instruct me?". This is the sort of arrogance and ignorance that some people try to peddle, to which RVR offered some respite (because after all, she holds permanent tenure and little can be done to hold her to book). Also, your claim that a "majority of alumni" hold her in high regard is downright laughable. Maybe you should step out of that same "law school-circle" bubble. Sorry, but not sorry. I stand by my characterisation of those and her ilk.
[TBC.]
4. A further point about re-evaluation (which seems to be your biggest hang up). Despite how many ever evaluation applications are being filed (which is a reasonable right of the 21st cent student to not take perceived arbitrariness lying down), it shouldn't be surprising that the vast number of results being over-turned during this also happen to be the problematic courses - History, CPC/DPC, ITL etc. Most appeals in other courses (Somu, Joga, Ramakrishna, HK Nagaraj, Tax etc) do not see a spectacular change in the results. If that's not food for thought, I don't know what is.
5. I do agree that the Law School I came to was easier than the Law School I graduated from. FAs and condonations were taken for granted by most of us. But subsequent to your departure, it might surprise you to know that, that culture has been seriously curbed. Many still got away with shortages, but they were far and few in between. Similarly, exemptions and extensions were somewhat curtailed. RVR should have policed that with a stronger hand. Then again, Lizzie infamously refused to grant exemptions in her courses. On what basis would she do this? After all, it was an entitlement under the 2009 rules. What made her special from everyone else? Can you blame RVR for entertaining direct applications from students? Would you rather the administrator cower before a professor because she's bombastic? No thanks. RVR was some solution at least to runaway egos.
6. To your point about how you are equally critical across the board. Again laughable. You point to the NALSAR/MoJ project on NLUs. Fair research, I don't disagree. But you've got a special place in your heart to flog problems that you see at NLS which you conveniently don't see in Shamirpet. To even equate your academic critique of the working of the NLU-model (generalised at that) to your constant diatribe about RVR and NLS is deeply disingenuous. You point to Faizan and Dhanda's open mind for reform? One can similarly point to RVR's open-door policy for students. Being student-friendly shouldn't be a crime. Did some students take advantage of it? Sure, they did. But did that undermine the institution? No, because this approach also helped so many people navigate the toxic power-structures of an institution, so that they could achieve what they needed. If that meant a favourable interpretation of the attendance requirement, then more power to him. At the end of the day, he's done more good than bad (some bad, yes).
7. I had the pleasure of being taught by you Chauhan, and I respect you as a teacher and a thinker. But it's much harder to respect your questionable agenda against RVR (which you insist is in the sole interest of Law School), especially when we saw good people working within the system with no quest for personal glory or vindictiveness (eg. Yashomati, Kunal [who is no fan of RVR either], Ramakrishna etc). I have also been told that RVR and Nandimath were at the forefront of resisting GoK's attempt at forcing a domicile quota which might have diluted our national vision (at great cost to their personal equations with the govt). All I could see when KCR pushed the Telangana agenda at NALSAR was Faizan playing along, and you tooting his horn (about opening NALSAR 2.0 in the city).
PS: If all it took to pass the reservation amndt was 2 days and no discussion, it was equally possible that GoK could force the roster-rules with ease, if there were disgruntled local ad-hocs whining
The question we are specifically examining is whether there are other candidates available now who can possibly deliver far better results than what RVR has over the past decade. In my mind (as well as those of many senior alumni), the unequivocal answer to that is yes. Many of the names proposed in the other comments (including some NLSIU Alumni who now have the necessary professorial experience and some of the serving Vice-Chancellors of other NLUs) have actually delivered far better results at other institutions in terms of faculty hiring, curriculum reform, support for research and extension activities as well as responsiveness to student grievances.
In that sense, our study on the working of the NLUs gave me a far better perspective than what we would have otherwise had. If you have read the report, you would have found specific criticisms directed at most of the institutions that were surveyed. Over-reliance on underpaid ad-hoc teachers is a problem plaguing most of the NLUs. In many cases, the reason for the same is not the lack of funds but the desire to exercise authority. So your accusation of hypocrisy does not really have much of a foundation. You seem to be giving more weightage to my facebook feed as opposed to a formal submission to the Central Government. In any case, what is wrong in demanding better standards of governance at one's own alma mater? Even if you account for my presumptive prejudice against RVR, NLSIU has also had a first-mover's advantage over the other NLUs and should hence be held to higher standards.
The major difference between our viewpoints is that I am looking at RVR's performance through the lens of what I saw before him and you seem to be narrowly focused on your time as a student. That's a reasonable framework for you to express your views but you seem to be completely negating the academic practices which had evolved during the first two decades of the institution's history. That is why I continue to flag the misuse of the re-evaluation provisions which were only codified in the 2009 examination regulations. (Ironically, I had pushed for their inclusion when I had served as a SBA-office bearer in 2006-2007). You cannot simply rebut that by saying that teachers are arbitrary. Re-evaluation provisions ordinarily entail scrutiny by other teachers who possess subject-matter expertise. By no stretch of imagination can the same be done at the personal discretion of the incumbent Vice-Chancellor. You will be hard pressed to find examples of that in any University that is worth its name. Your observations about the differences across re-evaluation results in several subjects are immaterial since it is the very process that is contrary to established academic principles. You cannot justify it by cherry-picking stray remarks made by individual teachers. Your repeated criticisms of Dr. Elizabeth are completely off the mark. Make the effort to talk to people across the first twenty batches and then tell me whose opinion is 'laughable'.
Your follow-up posts are largely extrapolating on the short-term interests of students (barring the last point about interference by the State Government) without looking at the larger possibilities of institutional growth. For instance, the institution could have easily done much more in terms of recruiting and retaining competent faculty members across subjects if the appointments cycles had been conducted regularly. I must remind you that the last full round of permanent appointments happened in September 2006 whereas the norm for public universities is to do so every 4-5 years. Your invocation of a few good teachers does not really address the criticism about how a majority of courses have collapsed over the past decade. A similar problem exists at my current institution (and other comparable institutions) but I have seen regular recruitment cycles which have mitigated the problem to some extent. Most people working here will openly acknowledge and discuss our failures on this count.
NLSIU used to have a practice of regular faculty meetings before RVR. There is not even a formal forum to discuss academic and administrative issues. The only route is through individual requests which lead to self-interested bargaining rather than a prioritisation of collective welfare. On that count, I can safely that my present institution does in fact provide forums for both teachers and students to have their say. Our suggestions may not always be acted upon by the decision-makers and sometimes there are sub-optimal decisions which are made. However, there is open debate on a continuous basis, be it in the weekly faculty meetings (held on Wednesdays) or the student open forums which are usually held 4-5 times during each semester. NALSAR is now practising what used to be the norm at NLSIU during the 1990s and the 2000s.
Coming to the concerns about undue interference from the State Government, your inputs are not consistent with what I have gathered from sources within the NLSIU EC. The domicile reservation bill was put on hold by the Governor of Karnataka after inputs from the Central Government. I am not sure how you have arrived at the conclusion that the present V-C and Registrar have somehow risked their relations with the State Government. The Secretaries of the Higher Education Department and the Law Department of the State Government are ex-officio members of the NLSIU EC. They are continuing their attendance at the EC meetings. Do you have any evidence of a confrontation with them? In fact, you seem to be attributing imaginary propositions to me (a 'straw man' if there ever was one) since I have not uttered a single word against RVR or OVN on this issue. They cannot be expected to take on the might of a State Government, especially when the annual grant for recurring expenditure comes from the same source. Nevertheless, the question of domicile reservations in the student intake is different from the concerns about domiciliary preferences in faculty hiring. You have not pointed to any concrete evidence to support your previous claims about the difficulties in completing the regularisation process.
The comparison with KCR's promises to NALSAR is completely misleading. In debating parlance, it is a 'false binary'. The Telangana Government has offered more land and buildings to expand our distance education programmes for the benefit of local advocates, businesses, NGOs and other educational institutions. The proposal for a 3 year LL.B. is also a response to the demands for better engagement with the needs of a newly created State. That will only come into effect once the land, buildings and funds are allotted to us. That may take a few more years. I don't see how thinking about a new programme is comparable to the situation at NLSIU.
Returning to the original point, we have to do our best as alumni to assist the Search-cum-Selection Committee in identifying the best available candidates. All I am saying (and that is my own opinion) is that it is time for the present incumbent to move on.
The alumni are also not in unison over this claim that "it was more rigorous and robust back then" you like to parrot. Some things were harder, somethings were easier - as is the case with most institutions. Nor was there ever this haven of academic excellence being hunted with absolute focus. There were the stragglers who tried to take processes for a ride, as always. My problem is your ever-perceptive antenna when it comes to RVR, to attribute the absolute worst motives to his actions, without even giving a second's thought to 'why' some things are being done. Yes, sometimes it is to reward his sycophants. BUT more often than not, it has been in the interest of Law School - be it recognising that the best academic environment can also be one that isn't an intellectual prison, but where ideas and positions have the space to grow, however radical and offensive to the established norms set by the aforementioned clique [[...] etc]. I am not condoning the sycophancy, but what gets my goat is your silence in applying a similar yardstick to your current employer (it isn't a leap to even consider why some deeply entrenched NALSAR power-brokers ended up where they are, owing to the patronage ecosystem run by Ranbir). As distasteful as all of it is, my sole point is that some of these trends are a reality of "doing (university) business in India".
I also agree that this should not be the ideal. But you're real comfortable in some selective outrage. I have, in fact, read the NALSAR-MoJ report. I take no exception with your findings there. From a meta-institutional standpoint, you're right - more teachers are needed, better teachers are needed, and good incentives for good teachers must exist etc. But you're right, my issue IS with your social media/media timeline. Your critical (hot) takes on those platforms seem reserved for RVR/NLS. To say that "see, I offer empirically-backed, robust research about institutionalized malaise at all NLUs through my reports. So that should mean that I'm not actually being selective when I rant online ONLY about RVR/NLS". If that isn't an argument in bad faith, I don't know what is. You know fully well that for a lot of your audience, byte-sized social media potshots are more accessible (time/effort-wise) than actually poring through published work. Most people see only the former, and might lead them to think that the biggest crisis lies in Nagarbhavi, which it doesn't.
Now it's my turn to take exception to your straw man, when you allege that I am only referring to short-term welfare of students and not the institution. There is nothing to conclusively establish that others at other institutions have 'outdone' him in any way, especially if all you can point to is faculty flight, besides this nebulous "falling standards" rhetoric that has plagued every institution down from Plato and Socrates. Law School continues to excel, welcomes competition from other rising NLUs, and remains a student-first environment [which was and continues to be it's biggest asset]. My point was that actual student harm (of arbitrariness, ideological rigidity, and downright incompetence) was being mitigated through RVR's approach, which admittedly is not the ideal long term solution. Re-evaluation must be a codified process, with clear benchmarks and guidelines. As you well know, if finding good teachers to take courses is difficult, finding teachers of comparable ability to "re-check" students' work is probably harder. But that doesn't mean you close off the sole remedy and avenue for students. Case in point, our dear [...] who knows very little [...] law/[...], was infamous for absolute arbitrariness that led to people being detained in 5th year for no fault of their own. You might say that this is 'student self-interest', but providing a facilitative environment for education and assessment and growth is also the role of a university. It doesn't exist to solely serve the faculty, but stands for a greater goal.
You point to recruitments under Mohan Gopal and Jayagovind as some golden age. I am sure you are aware that Menon himself was against the very idea of permanent positions (in principle) because he was acutely aware of the risks of entrenchment and the consequent power-dynamics which can lead to pedagogical stunting. Seeing some of the characters that are now guilty of academic rent-seeking from their exalted positions of tenure who think they're above the institution itself, at least some of that fear was not misplaced.
I'm sorry I don't have any further authority on the recruitment-domicile issue than what I've heard from (multiple) people who were directly told this by RVR. I don't see reason to think he lied, but maybe that's just me. But like I said, GoK is waiting in the wings to find an issue that they can piggy-back on, and any scandal over sidelining domiciled teachers can be a lightning rod for a surreptitious amendment to the recruitment rules (if domicile reservations were passed in a matter of 2 days, this can't be much harder). Also, SidC, it is beneath you to say "look, GoK reps on EC aren't raising a fuss in the EC, so this is not a concern". You know fully well that the state govt may not flag an issue or advocate their cause in the presence of SC judges. But rest assured, inquiries have been made and RVR/OVN were certainly taken to task by GoK (informally) over the Governor's decision to return the Bill. This is widely known, even among alumni.
It's good that NALSAR has some processes (like weekly meetings etc), which the next VC may look to revive. I'm glad that we are in agreement at least on your final paragraph. As alumni, we should hope that the best possible candidate can take Law School forward. All I disagree with is your claim that RVR regime was downright terrible for Law School. It's a mixed bag of a lot of positives, and some negatives.
I'm sorry for my anonymity, but I continue to be a fan of you as a teacher and intellectual. And I was sad when you left for NALSAR. I don't want to colour your impression of me because of this fundamental disagreement I have with your behaviour on this issue over the years.
As a fellow NLU graduate who spent some time teaching at NLSIU with RVR at the helm and who has seen the workings of other Indian law schools as a student and now faculty, I completely agree with you. In the time I was at NLS-B, I saw RVR's decision making closely and had to meet him several times for my own work. I got the distinct impression (corroborated by some of the more sensible faculty there) that RVR was a highly self-serving dictatorial bungler who cared not a bit for NLS except where it gave him direct kudos or to settle personal scores. His decisions ranged from subtle malice (deliberately going slow on regular recruitment) to outright pettiness (kicking faculty about on the subjects they were set to teach in a semester). Like you said, for him every meeting or request (often for basic things) was a bargain where he had to get something back or where he asserted his dominance. His "interventions" to "balance" faculty extremes was simply a tool to settle a score with that faculty and there are plenty of instances where he did nothing to balance extreme high or low marks (such as Ravindranath Tagore giving 80+% Os in a term). As for Lizzie, she is temperamental and stubborn but everyone knew her bark was worse than her bite and to suggest RVR was somehow "balancing" her "unreasonableness" is the most inane comment on RVR's positives (if he has any) that I have heard. His humouring the students with their ridiculous requests (condone 40% attendance, remarking, grace marks) was a time tested method to divide faculty and students, keep faculty insecure, boost his personal popularity, give rise to the idea that he had a khap court where under Art. 136 anybody could appeal, rules and procedure be damned. This kind of conduct would be unthinkable from the likes of Profs. Menon, Mitra, Jaygovind and MoGo. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind or the minds of the dozen or so NLU LLB alum teaching whom I am in touch with that RVR has been a disaster for NLS and stunted its growth severely, not to mention breed a certain attitude in its students that is evident in the comments of "SidCtruther"
I urge you to no longer engage with SidCtruther (most of his comments are frankly laughable and the "incremental change" argument of his suggests a complete disconnect with reality). A meaningful engagement can only happen when both sides have some level of parity or perspective. The trouble with people (like him) who are outside Indian academia or products of RVR's stewardship is that they have neither and cannot fathom administration of education in the way a faculty member can. This is a recurring problem with student bodies at most Indian law schools who think a few years as an SBA office bearer puts them at par with the teaching staff in understanding the working of the law school. To be a bit more speculative it seems apparent that SidCTruther is one of those who benefited from RVR's atrocious interference in micro academic matters and feels compelled to ease his conscience by defending him so stoutly. Perhaps with some luck he will agree with you after he is a few years' wiser.
All the best Siddharth, do not be perturbed by these half-witted and injudicious comments. We in the academic community (I speak for several colleagues) appreciate what you have done and are doing.
I hope you will continue the conversation on this thread and not take the convenient position of not replying on the grounds of the questioner’s anonymity or the subject of the post being different.
I am happy to participate in a process of reason-giving as long as it is tied to constructive ends. If anonymity on your respective parts enables a free and frank exchange, all the more better. The deliberative conception should take us towards valuing the best possible reasons for action rather than holding on to entrenched positions. However, my intention here is not to persuade anyone but to simply explain my own beliefs and actions.
The expansive use of discretionary powers such as re-evaluation, condonation of attendance shortages, granting of special repeats and the like are being defended by describing the actions of several teachers as arbitrary. My objection was to the centralised decision-making process itself since that is contrary to the core identity of an academic institution. While I disagree with your choice of words in describing individual teachers, let us assume that there have indeed been widespread animosities arising from their behaviour. What prevented the incumbent from taking proactive steps such as syllabus revision workshops, moderation of question papers and results through a structured system and the framing of guidelines for evaluation criterion. Those are routine practices at most higher educational institutions, especially those conferred with autonomy to conduct their own assessment of student performance. That is why you will be hard pressed to find a comparable example where the head of a credible public academic institution uses her/his personal discretion to overturn the judgment of its teachers. Those occurrences are more common at private institutions which cater to the demands of students and cheapen the value of their degrees. That is precisely what has happened at NLSIU through such an approach adopted by RVR.
The failure to invest in faculty development has also not been answered with any cogent reasons. All I am getting is weakly substantiated claims about external pressures from the State Government. Well, if those pressures have indeed escalated over the last two years, what prevented recruitments to permanent positions in the previous eight years. Many of the comparable institutions have conducted their recruitment cycles more often over the past decade. To be specific, NLU Delhi has conducted two rounds (2009 and 2013), NALSAR has conducted three rounds (2014, 2015 and 2017) and WBNUJS has conducted at least two rounds (2011 and 2017). I am not even counting larger Universities (APU, TISS, JGU, IIT-D, TERI and AUD to name a few) which have attracted the kind of teaching talent that could have come to NLSIU. There has clearly been a lack of will and planning on this count. NLSIU had entered the third decade of its teaching programmes when my batch graduated in 2008. With the introduction of the 6th Pay Commission and more clarity on recruitment norms, most of us thought that NLSIU would make rapid progress on this front. This is why I am holding NLSIU to a higher standard when compared to the other NLUs which started their operations several years later.
There are some new points which I should respond to. At no point have I been a votary of the 'NLSIU had a golden age' trope. You are conflating my specific criticisms of RVR's approach to decision-making with much broader views expressed by some others. As undergraduate students, we were also constantly told that the previous batches were more engaged. It is a bit like any older generation bemoaning that the next generation is useless. Every institution has its crests and troughs and as a student of political theory, I am well aware of the dangers of adopting a teleological view of institutional history. We cannot presume that an institution's growth will always be for the better or for the worse. At no point have I argued that NLSIU as a whole is in a state of perpetual decline. By all counts, it continues to be the top-preference for CLAT aspirants. I will also readily admit that RVR has been far more generous in funding student-organised activities when compared to the previous four Vice-Chancellors. The basket of co-curricular activities organised by students has undoubtedly grown to be more diverse and so have the extension activities organised by the various research centres. Despite the lack of planning in matters of faculty development, there are still several competent and motivated teachers at the institution. In any case, the hope is that the best years of the institution are ahead of us and not in the past.
So it is a mistake on part of '@Not from Golden Era' to claim that I am setting up a binary between the first twenty batches and those who have studied during the RVR years. The substance of my criticism has been directed at RVR's populist approach to academic decision-making. In my view, that has caused gradual structural damage which needs to be repaired with urgency. He has done much better on fronts such as fund-raising and attracting publicity for events organised by the institution. Such qualities have been demonstrated by several other NLU VCs, some of whom are clearly ahead on this count. Being a genuine academic leader is much harder.
It is also a diversionary tactic to suggest that I am glorifying the previous Vice-Chancellors. Each of them had their respective strengths and weaknesses. I am most familiar with Dr. A. Jayagovind since I studied during his tenure. He received a fair share of criticism for being too aloof and not being decisive in administrative matters. However, he never used his personal discretion to undermine institutionally established processes such as anti-plagiarism inquiries, investigations into complaints of sexual harassment and most importantly the academic decisions made by the undergraduate and postgraduate councils. The faculty appointments made by him were not extraordinary as a whole but he did regularise people like Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Rahul Singh, Priya Pillai and Nanda Kishore in the September 2006 round. It is another matter that most of them left to pursue better opportunities.
Your common grouse is that I have been frequently using my social media accounts to criticise RVR. This is fundamentally a debate about the characterisation of the last 10 years, which does have a bearing on the leadership question for the future. I will maintain my position that his two-terms have severely compromised the standards of academic integrity that are expected from a pace-setter institution such as NLSIU. If the students and a few teachers have continued to do well in spite of that, it is to their credit. In looking for new leadership, one has to evaluate the performance of the incumbent and benchmark it against that of competitors and aspirants. I am as entitled to express my opinions on public fora as you are to respond to them. Assuming that I do have an undue advantage when it comes to mobilising opinion on this issue, then nothing prevents other interested parties from framing a disagreement. As an alumnus engaged in the teaching branch, I will continue to watch the patterns of decision-making at the institution. I have no obligation to carry that burden for the entire NLU system. The fact that newer institutions are being run in a worse manner cannot be a reason to not question what happens in the presumptive leader of the pack.
I'm not sure if "Academic" is even from Law School ("NLU alum" seems conveniently vague, which leads me to wonder why his/her take on what Menon/Jayagovind/Mohan Gopal etc may have done should even be considered). In any case, "who think a few years as an SBA office bearer puts them at par with the teaching staff", "some of the more sensible faculty there", and "courses they were supposed to teach" sure suggests a sense of entitlement to that same divine right some academics seem to have given themselves. It would behoove them to remember that Law School doesn't exist just to give washed-up academics jobs. As much as he might speculate that I sound like a beneficiary of RVR's largesse, many could speculate that he's yet another iteration of that ancient adage, "Those who can do, do. Those who can't, (try to) teach (and weasel into a safe job, but whine when then they're exposed for the failures they were destined to become)".
Faculty have to be open-minded, reactive, and engaged with the student body, and all of this can be achieved without diluting the quality of instruction. I have no conscience to ease (if that should even matter), but I'm glad that my time in law school wasn't marred by runaway faculty egos who kept students intellectually locked up or bullied into silence - [...]
@SidC: I still don't get why faculty regularisation is a necessary precondition to quality. Joga Rao has no qualms about lacking an EPF account. I'm also told that the response from alumni and external academics to the electives scheme have been positive - quality courses are being offered by quality instructors (largely, at least). Sadly some (but not all) seem to expect Law School to be an academic-job-guarantee-scheme. It is okay if you haven't recruited in a while if teaching standards haven't (remarkably and unexpectedly) dropped. Many bad ad-hocs need to be removed (and RVR hasn't been as enthusiastic about this as he should be), but there are a wealth of good tenured faculty, ad-hocs and guest faculty who can make up for that.
You didn't engage with my point about Dr Menon's views on this, either. However, if regularisation can serve as a good incentive to retain talent, it can surely be explored cautiously - but your own observation about most of the good 2006 recruits leaving (save for Rahul Singh) suggests that this could well be a bogey. The good faculty with options in their careers might very leave for different opportunities despite tenure (as is their right), while those of questionable substance who park themselves into tenure (and with few other alternatives) would hold on to it for dear life. That was Dr Menon's fear, and isn't entirely unreasonable. Further, the extraneous pressures (from GoK etc) do exist, but we've been fortunate to keep the peace so far. I wish it weren't so, but you play the cards you're dealt.
I did concede that a lot of RVR's actions were sub-optimal solutions to real problems, which may well have had spillover effects. But Law School is better off with that solution than none. Given the immovable egos of many entrenched interests, it may not be as easy as you put it for RVR to wave a magic wand and deliver "syllabus revision workshops, moderation of question papers and results through a structured system and the framing of guidelines for evaluation criterion" at the drop of a hat. He probably took the easier way out, of putting out fires where they came up, and let the rest of the train run its course. A better administrator may have pursued the structural reform that was needed with greater purpose/vigour. But sometimes, one's got to pick his fights. Every problem can't be looked at as THE hill to die on. We've all been told how much of an uphill battle it was to even deliver the recent curriculum reform, and that's in spite of RVR backing it. So, yes, while more could have been done in a better fashion, on a comprehensive review, RVR at Law School did move us all forward (and not backward, irredeemably or otherwise, as you insist). Most batches continue to have a few exceptional people, some hopeless ones, and a bulk of well-educated, intelligent and worthwhile additions to our alumni who continue to be a credit to the Law School community. Of this I'm convinced, not just by emotion, but observation and experience.
But there's really no need to belabour this point any further. SidC, you've made your view clear, and I hope I've made mine as well. I don't know about you, but I am grateful to see that some of your positions are certainly welcome (such as debunking this ridiculous "falling standards" narrative). I'm sorry for conflating that with your (more specific) criticisms of administration. However I hope you see what triggered my strong response in the first place - you DO have an advantage in mobilising opinion on Law School-related issues:
1. You're a high profile alumnus, and former SBA office-bearer
2. You came back to the alma mater to teach, which gives you immense goodwill (rightly so)
3. You left Law School under sensational circumstances, and immediately joined a competing college
All of this leaves you with a platform to air your views where people listen (at least at a surface-level, which can easily entrench mischaracterisations and misconceptions). You're entitled to your platform. But don't presume that low profile people who may have a legitimate point to make, can easily call you out on it. Even this exchange is beset with insinuations about 'being too junior', 'product of falling standards', 'insecurity' and so on. It's altogether another matter that I'd like to think that I'm affected by any of this, but it is nonetheless a lazy attempt at side-stepping, rather than dismantling my argument.
"As an alumnus engaged in the teaching branch, I will continue to watch the patterns of decision-making at the institution. I have no obligation to carry that burden for the entire NLU system. The fact that newer institutions are being run in a worse manner cannot be a reason to not question what happens in the presumptive leader of the pack." I agree. As long as your heart is in a place that wants what is best for Law School, more power to you. I am happy to see you clarify it.
Yes, It is about time to bring this particular exchange to an end. We have both expressed our respective views on the broader characterisation of RVR's leadership. I will conclude by responding to your question about the long-term implications of regularising teachers. Dr. N.R. Madhava Menon's views on this are quite well known and borne out by his hiring decisions made between 1988-1996. It is difficult to agree with the approach of largely relying on ad-hoc teachers in underpaid positions. It may be necessary during the early stages of institutional development and during times of scarce monetary resources. However, the financial situation at NLSIU has been relatively stable between 2009-2019 especially owing to the enrolments in distance education programmes. Plus, the sectoral regulator clearly states a preference for filling up permanent positions which also counts towards public ranking systems (NIRF, NAAC) and as a criteria for seeking further public funds.
A modern law school (whether public or private) needs to pursue multiple strategies when it comes to faculty development. The core law and social science courses need to be delivered by tenured teachers who can bring theoretical rigour as they accumulate experience. Practice-oriented subjects can benefit from the involvement of practitioners volunteering time as adjuncts and teachers/researchers from other institutions can be roped in to teach shorter visiting courses. However, we cannot have a situation where a majority of the core subjects are also being delivered by ad-hocs for long periods going beyond 5-6 years. That is the surest way of driving the competent ones towards better opportunities at other institutions. Frequent changes in instructors for core subjects undermines the quality of teaching and learning which can otherwise be gradually improved by those with continuous experience.
While experienced individuals such as Dr. S.V. Joga Rao (who had earlier taught as a regular faculty member at NLSIU between 1988-2002) may be indifferent to the differences in income, it is really not a practical choice for people in their late 20s or early 30s who are looking at teaching as a long-term career option. There is a considerable difference between the salaries offered to ad-hoc teachers and those in permanent positions. This difference only grows with time since regular teachers are entitled to annual increments and allowances, apart from becoming eligible for promotions based on their experience. Those who continue in ad-hoc positions for several years (despite having the necessary qualifications) are not only losing income but are also in an uncertain position when it comes to further career-growth.
At a principled level, having a core group of tenured faculty members is necessary to protect institutional and personal independence against external interference from governmental, business and dominant cultural interests. It is also one of the attractions of working at a public institution when compared to newer private institutions that may offer better-pay in the short run but not job-security for the long-run.
Are such protections misused by some people? Yes, they are. However, the solution is not to do away with the concept of tenure but to have a more robust screening process at the time of recruitments and promotions. If you regularise mediocre people, they will become bigger liabilities over time as they move into senior positions. On that count, I would agree with some of your observations. However, institutions such as the NLUs are attracting a very bright cohort of students every year. So what prevents Faculty Selection Committees from attracting the best teaching talent that is available? Maybe the best people may quickly move on to better opportunities. However, the intent should be to at least make the institution an attractive proposition in the first place.
I hope that this exchange will encourage LI readers to think more closely about the prospects of the NLUs. I cannot speak about all of them, but can at least address what I have witnessed in the last 15 years.
My batch had RVR in its final year. The very first thing he did (literally) was to pass half a dozen students of the previous batch who had failed in some paper and faced the prospect of waiting a year more for their degree. He simply approved the matter without any hearing, speaking to the faculty (not Lizzie) or even Padma ma'am. Under Jayagovind these applications would simply not have made it to his desk or end up in his trash. RVR's coming was a golden 2nd/3rd/4th chance for all the students in the bottom 25% who saw his approvals as a genie to get out of the mess they were in thanks to their own lack of effort. I am not sure our batch exploited RVR's generosity in these matters but the 1st/2nd/3rd yrs got the hint well. I also remember RVR's slow but determined efforts to undercut the professors he disliked. I wont take names here but any application regarding their marking resulted in a favourable outcome for the student who also was usually treated to some derogatory comments about that professor in the VC's office. Since leaving law school I've gone back twice, first for the 20 year reunion and once for an informal meet with friends. On both occasions we saw a lot of RVR making an ass of himself (the 20 year reunion
videos might have captured this) and making snide remarks about a few faculty members (to people like me whom he did not know). Instead of a 10 min meet and greet with pleasantries we had to endure a half hour of his prejudices, as well as his lack of understanding of some of our suggestions (such as having a dean for academics on the lines of NALSAR).
I'm also calling out the rubbish posted by SidCTruther about teaching which looks more like a low, cheap shot at Sidharth (like the other not-so-subtle cheap shots shes/hes been taking at Sidharth over his departure from law school) than Academic. Most of it sounds like an angry 1st year's self-righteous babbling at getting his/her first taste of hostel restrictions. Expecting a new faculty member to show SVJR's lack of interest in EPF is such a foolish comment. Expecting law school to run on ad hocs who get paid a static sum year after year is dangerous and stupid. But these comments are like how students critique the working of law firms without having worked in one themselves. So SidCTruther if you are a law school alum (as unlikely as it appears) its a good idea to talk less and learn more till such time you experience law school under the previous VCs or actually follow Sidharth Chauhan and work in one (though I doubt you can do either).
I can only laugh at the 'incremental change' argument. Perhaps the statements were made by a student whose marks were incrementally increased after revaluation at a local university. RVR has spared the rod and spoilt his children. No wonder the kids want the pampering to continue. NLS continues to be No. 1 only because of the steam it gathered by the vision of its first few Vice Chancellors and the committment of the founding faculty members. And most importantly due to its wonderful alumni. RVR has only reaped the fruits of someone else's labour, albeit for too long.
NLS gave away it's crown jewel Professor, Mr V Vijay Kumar to NLIU. He could've been the first choice for the position. He is doing excellent in NLIU, and bravely fighting the problems surrounding the law school. Ranbir Singh is another such VC, but he too would soon retire and I don't see anybody as good as him as of now.
Maybe we should change the criteria or a crisis is imminent.
Time and time again, Legally India has picked up good stories, but never bothered to pursue them. You have let many good causes die in this way Kindly be sincere at least about this story and write the follow-up article I suggested.
Sandeep Gopalan is the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Academic Innovation and a Professor of Law at Deakin University. Previously, Sandeep served as the Dean of Deakin Law School. Before joining Deakin University, he was the Dean of the Law School at the University of Newcastle. Prior to this, Sandeep served as the Head of the Department of Law at the National University of Ireland Maynooth for 4 years. He has held positions previously as an Associate Professor of Law in the United States and in the United Kingdom for several years.
Research interests
Corporate Governance Law
International Law
Commercial Law
White-Collar Crime
Corporate Law
www.deakin.edu.au/about-deakin/people/sandeep-gopalan
In 2012, several State Governments asked the UGC to relax the requirements owing to the paucity of eligible candidates. Since then, some States such as Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have revised their legislations dealing with State Universities and mirrored the requirements laid down in the UGC Regulations. As for Karnataka, the general law dealing with State Universities was revised in 2017. However, NLSIU has its own Act (passed in 1986, amended in 2004) which does not specify this threshold. The Regulations created by the NLSIU Executive Council do not explicitly state the requirement of professorial experience for 10 years when it comes to appointing the Vice-Chancellor. This means that the Search-cum-Selection Committee does in fact have the discretion to depart from the UGC Regulations when it comes to appointing the NLSIU Vice-Chancellor.
If one takes the example of other NLUs, some Vice-Chancellors have been appointed before meeting this threshold. For example, Dr. Faizan Mustafa became a full Professor at Aligarh Muslim University in 2004 and later became the V-C of NLU Odisha in 2009 and got appointed at NALSAR Hyderabad in 2012. Dr. Vijender Kumar became a full Professor at NALSAR in 2009 but was made the V-C at NLU Assam in 2014 and MNLU Nagpur in 2016. Their appointments have been made by the respective Chief Justices of the High Courts, so they could not have made such a blatant mistake in applying the law.
In short, the field is now wide open. The Search-cum-Selection Committee can consider younger candidates based on their academic standing. It is time for the NLSIU Alumni Association to identify competent and willing candidates, followed by formal representations to the Seach-cum-Selection Committee after the advertisement is published.
On the issue of several questionable VC and faculty appointments which may have been in violation with UGC rules, I don't think you are arguing that decisions by certain worthies are above the law. I don't know whether the 10-year Prof rules etc were in vogue when certain appointments were made in NLUO or MNLU Nagpur or the irregular award of Prof positions to Sudhir, Shamnad et al by Prof MP Singh can be sustained if challenged. Maybe what MP Singh did was good but how does that answer the question whether the then existing laws were violated or not?
Ideally educational institutions should have greater autonomy from state control. But that is unlikely to happen soon and rarely have NLU VCs (but also other VCs in general) have done anything to ensure institutional autonomy. Almost all have been sell outs while claiming lack of funds or that NLUs are creatures of state legislatures.
Personally, it would have been great if an NLS/NLU alum took over from Venkat Rao but that looks difficult right now for reasons that have been flagged by others here. The other disturbing logic is that because certain potentially irregular appointments were cleared by nominal Chancellors, either CJ or CJI, they would have certainly been aware of the laws. Well, clearly not if we look into what has gone down in recent times (as reported in LI and elsewhere) in GNLU, NUJS, HNLU, NLU Ranchi, CNLU Patna and NLIU Bhopal.
Having the CJ or CJI or his/her nominee as the Chancellor was meant to signal autonomy from state politics; elevated position to access government funding and build in a degree of investment (social, intellectual etc) from the superior judiciary to preserve autonomy. That is clearly not clicking right now.
He was invited to give the Basu Memorial Lecture by Kaushik Basu, which is a big honour. You can see from the video what a brilliant thinker and speaker he is.
Sexual harassment concerns aside. How exactly is Lawrence Liang any relevant outside of this small nls-Delhi law circle? He doesn’t even have a PhD! And he’s as old as Sudhir is.
How many young people has he guided to finish their higher education? How many has he fostered?
You can point to his various publications - but are any of them really any good ? Have you read them? Was he saying something new or doing good research ? Or was he merely posturing to the media and capitalising on attention given to emerging areas of the law? Is he a serious academic? Does his work really compare at all to the work done by people like Amita Dhanda or Lizzie or even Sudhir K?
I have read his work and I cannot name a single instance of creative innovative research- just arguments that any decent law grad should be able to make.
If he’s an expert in IP isn’t Shamnad or hell Chinmayi Arun even more of an expert ? Aren’t they doing more important work?
Working on tech when tech was the emerging field does not show brilliance- only luck.
Isn’t Gautam Bhatia or Apar Gupta or Pranesh Prakash a better resource on tech law? And Bhatia has a PhD. Shall we go ahead and make them all VCs? Hell why are we so focused on tech law anyway? Certainly people working on criminal law or even on property law are doing things that are far more important to the large mass of Indian society. Why don’t we get Aparna Chandra or Anup Surendranath or Namita Wahi to be the next VC?
Comments like this act like Lawrence was some driving force behind ALF- he was not even among the original four who founded ALF, and if anyone was the driving force it would be the Narain brothers. The Lawrence Liang stuff actually drove people away from ALF- disillusioned and disappointed. Not just interns but employees.
Is being a cool nls bro who quizzes and talks about film and mingles with the in crowd all that it takes ?
To be the VC? Really?
The standard has to be set somewhere. Sudhir is as old as Lawrence and has done ten times as much work. And his work is a hundred times more rigorous. And once you’re past a certain standard - everyone wins prizes. Literally everyone. It does not make him exceptional or a genius. Surely if nls thinks so much of itself it can set its standards a little higher than Lawrence Liang !
The point ofcourse is not that Bhatia should be the VC (hah!) or that chinmayi arun should or that anyone else I named should. It was to prove that this assumed brilliance on Lawrence’s part is mostly faff. - younger or similarly places people are doing much much better! we need to question whether Lawrence Liang is this genius star academic the comment I was responding to props him up to be.
I am very hopeful for the future of Indian academia - there are a lot of people doing very important work- few of them belong to this nls cool bro club.
Also I doubt she would consent to leave NALSAR, a place to which she has given over two decades.
That said, in case FM moves on to pastures new, she may be asked to take over at Hyderabad. Whether she will accept might be a different story.
There are now several NLSIU alumni who have been serving as full professors for several years. If the UGC Regulations are not automatically binding on the NLUs, the Selection Committees can consider these names. Among those teaching in India, Sudhir Krishnaswamy has been a full professor since 2009. As pointed out earlier, people like Arun Kumar Thiruvengadam, Mrinal Satish and Sarasu Thomas became full Professors in 2017 but they can be considered on the basis of their teaching and scholarship.
There are many more teaching abroad who are already at the rank of Professor and hence can be considered. Some notable names are Srividya Raghavan (Texas A&M University), T.T. Arvind (York University), Sandeep Gopalan (Deakin University), Sandeep Srikumar (City University New York), Prabha Kotiswaran (Kings College London), Deepa Badrinarayana (Chapman University) and Shyamkrishna Balganesh (University of Pennsylvania). There are also some very good people who are presently at the Associate Professor rank and will be good academic leaders for Indian law schools in the future. I can think of V. Umakanth (National University of Singapore), Tarunabh Khaitan (Oxford University) and Neha Jain (University of Minnesota) in this category. The crucial question is whether they will be interested in returning to India. Perhaps a few of them may be willing to come back on deputation from their present Universities if they are offered leadership roles at the various NLUs.
In any case, this is the fourth and last comment that I am leaving on this story. I hope that the NLSIU Alumni Association moves quickly in this matter and sets a constructive example for the other NLUs as well. We simply cannot afford to have a fresh round of Vice-Chancellors who will worry more about their own positions rather than the welfare of their students.
This is plain simple reading. If any sitting NLU Vice Chancellors shift to any other NLU above mentioned on selection, then there will be further vacancies to be filled
All the names that are trending here are not sufficient to fill the 10 vacancies of Vice chancellor position in the mentioned NLUs. Even, the 10 years professorship rule of UGC cannot be strictly followed to fill the vacancies.
#NationaliseNLUs.
1. Shyam Balganesh
2. Tarunabh Khaitan
3. V Umakanth
4. Sandeep Gopalan
5. Prabha Kotiswaran
6. Rahul Rao
7. Sudhir Krishnaswamy
8. Lawrence Liang
9. Shamnad Basheer
10.Srividya Raghavan
- Improvement in infrastructure
- Success in moots, Rhodes and other scholarships
- Ability to get alumni + other NLU alumni to teach, despite poaching offers from Jindal. Overall improvement in faculty. Please also note that one person leaving due to unbecoming conduct is no loss for the institution.
- New research centres and grants.
- Above all, maintaining the school's #1 status despite stiff competition from other NLUs.
Prof Rao deserves another term and national recognition for his great achievements through a Padma Shri, as was awarded to Prof Menon.
At least the person who has been the most consistent critic of RVR has been commenting here in his own name. Which statement made by him (or anyone else) is false? Are you denying the misuse of the re-evaluation provisions apart from the other concessions handed out to students? Are you actually claiming that faculty recruitments have been good when a majority of the present ad-hoc teachers (apart from the ones I named earlier) are unable to explain basic concepts or even engage the classes. What is the output created by the new research centres? It is very easy to organise training programmes. Has there been any credible research published by these newer research centres? All I see is case digests and third-rate articles written by teachers seeking promotions. How is the Vice-Chancellor to be credited for the competitions won by students? He can get some credit for providing funding but most other NLU VCs have also done the same, if not better. Thankfully the quality of students entering into NLSIU has been good. They would have done well (or even better) even if someone like VVK or Nagaraj has become V-C in 2009. Seriously, this is the height of sycophancy. If RVR does indeed get a third term, NLSIU will struggle to be in the top 5 Indian law schools in the coming decade.
As have the 3 people who like the comment.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Scientist-JNU-prof-in-race-for-MSU-chiefs-post/articleshow/50814335.cms
I would urge alumni from the other NLUs to mobilise in a similar manner so as to identify the best possible candidates for the Vice-Chancellor positions at their respective institutions. The ideal candidates should have demonstrated excellence in teaching, research and administration taken together.
1. NLSIU Bangalore
2. NALSAR Hyderabad
3. NUJS Kolkata
4. NLU Delhi
5. NLU Jodhpur/NLIU Bhopal (no rankings within the same tier).
6. GNLU Gandhinagar
7. MNLU Mumbai/HNLU Raipur/GLC Mumbai/ILS Pune/SLS Pune/NMIMS Mumbai/JGLS Sonepat
8. RMLNLU Lucknow/Amity Law School Delhi/NUALS Kochi/Christ Bangalore
9. Reputed Central/State Universities (Jamia Millia, Benaras Hindu University, Aligarh Muslim University, Panjab University)/NLU Odisha/RGNUL Patiala.
www.lawctopus.com/top-law-colleges-india-5-year-law-course/
www.nls.ac.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1430
Last date for sending applications is April 22, 2019. Applicants need to be less than 60 years of age.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first