A Bar Council of India (BCI)-led “fact finding body” produced a critical report in November 2013 on NUJS Kolkata’s affairs.
However, to most intents and purposes, the 224-page report has been buried by the administration since then.
Headlines
The report concluded that the law school was short of at least 10 teachers, including four professors, and asked NUJS to “make fresh recruitment of faculty staff including some senior Professors”, and to design “short credit courses” instead of full courses, to enable the university to invite more visiting faculty.
The body also found other gaps in the running of the law school, including “awfully bad” maintenance of administrative records, power factions in the faculty leading to a lack of coordination between the administration and the faculty body, irregularities in employment and inadequate examination rules.
It advised that it was “high time” the chancellor constituted a University Review Commission (URC) which was pending since May 2010.
Signed by BCI members Ashok Kumar De (also an NUJS executive council member), RG Shah and the BCI’s Legal Education Committee member Dr NL Mitra, the body also suggested setting up a BCI special committee for National Law University affairs in general. The committee could be comprised of a retired Supreme Court judge, an academic of high repute, a lawyer of high repute and the BCI’s chairman.
It advised the NUJS executive council to constitute a “strong committee to examine past records and faculty members’ grievances” and to decide on the matter of a former employee who had alleged unfair summary dismissal from the university. It also advised the vice chancellor (VC) to formulate rules and a “best practice code” for faculty meetings and decisions.
“Suppressed” report
Student and faculty sources at NUJS claimed the administration made no effort to make them aware of the report, and even “suppressed” it from those who found out about its existence and filed Right to Information (RTI) applications seeking to unearth it.
One faculty member said: “We were interviewed by the BCI members like Professor NL Mitra and some other persons were there. Professor Mitra was heading the committee. We were asked about all the problems that NUJS was facing at the moment. But the document hasn’t been made public. The BCI report was received by the VC last year during the month of November and the EC [meeting] was held thereafter. And the EC has been demanding to see that report but he has not shown it.
“That report has been suppressed. RTIs have been filed but there has been no response either from the BCI or from the university.”
NUJS vice chancellor Ishwara Bhatt commented: “I have submitted an application to the chief justice asking for the constitution of the University Review Commission. It is for him to decide [by when it will be constituted].”
He told Legally India that 8 faculty in both law and social sciences were hired by NUJS since November, and that the law school was “waiting for specific suggestion from the BCI” on how to give justice to the former employee who had alleged unfair treatment.
“We have taken all the appropriate measures, I cannot share any detail,” he said.
An April 2014 report by a committee led by former Rajasthan high court chief justice NN Mathur found evidence indicative of financial mismanagment of funds at NUJS, as reported by Legally India last week. That report had been shared with the student body by the student council.
In 2012, a report on mismanagement at Nalsar Hyderabad had been buried in the then-vice chancellor’s office for four months.
On “grossly inadequate” teaching staff
The body noted that the currently present number of 22-23 teachers at NUJS was not enough to meet the “hunger of a modern student”, and that the number was such because “the University did not have adequate and proactive leave policy and faculty deployment planning”.
The body made the following observations:
“[…] the allegation of the students that there were inadequate numbers of faculty members in the University and in each vertical/department of knowledge was very right.”
“[…] about 1/4th of the faculty strength at a given time was been found to be on leave including study leave […]”
“To tell the truth with 22-23 faculties one can think only of managing a Law College with definitive program without any specialization. It could not be a University. Naturally hunger of a modern student could hardly be met.”
“In fact the University would require at least additional faculty of 2 to 3 in Social Science (at least 1 in Economics), and 7 to 8 in various branches of Law especially 2 in Criminal administration of Justice, one in Procedural law and legal aid (preferable a retired District Judge), 1 in International Trade Law, 1 in Taxation including International Taxation, 2 in Business Law and 1 in Banking & Insurance. The University would require at least 10 devoted faculty members (of whom at least 5 dedicated professors) to run one year LLM. That being the minimum requirement under UGC guidelines.”
“The Committee noticed that the University did not have required number of Professors. According to UGC Rules also there has to be at least five Professors. But there were only two Professors including the Vice Chancellor. As a matter of fact there was only one regular Professor. The cadre Professor was on lien and left to take charge of ILI Delhi. Other two Chair Professors have their chair commitment if any. One of course was on long leave.”
“It would also show that the university could not open its basket of optional courses and specialized papers because it would not have simple “numbers” both quantity as well as quality-wise, of teachers to take up responsibility. Even in conventional branches of law, like criminal law, civil law, personal law, international law and such others, the university was not in a position to afford presently more than a single position. With one criminal law faculty host of specialized courses such as juvenile justice, IT offences, […etc.] could not be taken up. With one corporate law faculty one would not be able to think to run specialized courses on corporate finance, […etc…] The university did not have any faculty on Banking and Insurance. Naturally, students have the reason to feel suffocated due to paucity of adequate teaching staff. It is in this context, the University would better design short credit courses and ask students to take total so many credit instead of full courses of 4 credit each. That would enable the University to invite more visiting faculty.”
“The strength of the faculty for social science was grossly inadequate especially in Economics.”
“So the Committee found the grievances of the students to be quite justified. Committee would urge upon the LEC of the BCI to direct the University authority to redress these grievances by making fresh recruitment of faculty staff including some senior Professors, keeping in view the requirements.”
Other areas of mismanagement
The fact finding body said that there was evidence indicating that there was a sentiment in the faculty body that favouritism was being practiced at the law school, that there were “clear cases” of irregular employments being made at NUJS, and that maintenance of service records and other records at the law school was abysmal.
It made the following observations:
“There was a strong feeling among faculty members that some faculty members would always like to remain closer to the center to the power and were always favored.”
“The Committee strongly felt that in the absence of regular and timely meetings of the Faculty in which Faculty members could very freely exchange views and could review actions and resolutions of academic management perspectives in a seamless operation of flow of academic administration, this divisions and sub divisions would remain and that would injure the homogeneity of the faculty and administration.”
“At least two clear cases were presented in which there were evidences of some gross deviation from normal practices relating to selection of academic staff an pay protection (or denial thereof) by concerned faculty members in their oral presentations.”
“It was revealed that maintenance of records and including service records and other administrative records were awfully bad and the statutory rules were also not observed willfully.”
The body took note of recent bad publicity NUJS garnered in the media through an allegation sexual harassment of a staff member and an incident of a faculty member slapping a student, and stated in its report:
“These incidents must be administered with a very strong hand. The Committee was concerned with the present indiscipline and absence self-restraint. The Committee urges the EC to examine all matters of administrative lapses and also deal with those who indulged in indiscipline either openly or through media […]”
Full main body of report (excluding annexures)
Editor's note: We are working on analysing and scanning the voluminous annexures and hope to publish parts of these in future.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
The rest is background, but if so many people were interested in the report, it's only fair to share and explain what it said, surely?
First paragraph, really? Your rambling does not say anything about the reasons/causes of the hiding, except for a few words as lip service : "However, to most intents and purposes, the 224-page report has been buried by the administration since then."
And why did you this for reporting all of a sudden? Besides, as true journalist can you not engage in fact-finding, instead of quoting abstracts from a long report?
Immediately ( without any further delay) Hon'ble CJI ( Hon'ble Chancellor of NUJS ) and all the Hon'ble Judges Supreme Court of India should themselves direct CBI to investigate all the illegalities and the financial scams in NUJS and arrest the people who has polluted the Legal Institution of India ( NUJS ) as well as cheated the students and their parents
Quoting Guest:
Dear Guest
Is it appearing to be a mess to you ?
I feel that you are one of that Faculty in NUJS who was also aware of the Financial scams and illegal functioning in NUJS. Was it not your duty as Faculty to raise your voice against illegalities and financial scams in the Institution where you teach Legal subjects to the students of the Country and for which you are paid ? You should be proud that what you could not do , one your colleague did it and for which she was mentally tortured for days after days for 4-years. Is this what you teach to your students or is this the norms of Legal education of our country ?
Read the report line by line if you don't understand the meaning of the word mess and what is SET RIGHT THE WRONG
Unless you're implying that LI had a copy of the report for 9 months and was hiding it? :)
Don't other law schools and law universities and law schools of India have any adiminstrative problems? If there are, and presumably there are, aren't committees formed to look into the administrative mess? If committees do indeed exist, and presumably they do, have they all buried the respective reports?
Kian, how about a comparitive chart of all the problems facing all the law schools and law universities and law schools of India? That is what will help future law students, not some bogus rankings.
Here's to transprency!
Let an inquiry be called to examine how qualified Poddar is. He publishes Z-grade article in journals that he starts himself! See this:
docs.google.com/a/nujs.edu/file/d/0B4XaA30casoDaWlRWXl3ak90QWs/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1
I wonder why LI does not seek a comment from Poddar about the above article? Biased journalism!
Secondly, you suggested for examining qualification of Poddar, that is good, but why not for other teachers also, I mean right from inception of NUJS.
Regarding publication, I think the source you have highlighted seems to be older one, why you have not highlighted any recent publication of him. it means you are biased and not neutral. Visit his personal website and see the work that he has done before commenting.
I would like to say that Prof Poddar, Chanda and Srinivasulu are incorrect in complaining against Prof Pritam Baruah on the basis that a BCL degree is not equivalent to an LLM. A BCL is very much equivalent to an LLM. In fact, Prof Basheer and Justice Ruma Pal were given professor rank with a BCL degree and no PhD.
You are reading the annexures as well? Ha ha..Vella
In the report, it says that 3 professors (X, Y, Z) complained against another professor (J) saying that J is not qualified to teach as J holds a BCL degree from Oxford, and that a BCL degree is not equivalent to LLM. This is not true, as a BCL is equivalent to LLM.
I would like to know whether legal action can be taken for making such statements.
Hello OMG, I think you have to again read pages 10 & 11 of the Original BCI report. Where you will find point no 3.5 in which Dr. Chanda through clause (a) brings the matter of Pritam and through clause (b) speaks of Prabhash.
There is no role played by Poddar and Sreenivasulu in this matter. Rather they brought other issues which are available in clause (c).
I would like to know whether Poddar and Sreenivasulu can bring legal action against you because of this wrong communication in the public forum and for deliberately targeting them.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first