The Bar Council of India (BCI) inspection committee that visited and reported on the state of affairs at Delhi University’s (DU) law schools in October of last year, was of “the firm view” that DU’s three law schools “should be closed down”, the full text of the committee’s report has revealed.

According to the 127-page report, which DU law dean Ashwini Bansal refused to share with Legally India since January, the inspection committee has recommended that because DU’s law centres failed to comply with 17 conditions listed, it should not be allowed to admit any new batches of students.

The 17 conditions included scrapping of evening classes, cutting down class size, regular instead of ad hoc appointments of an adequate number of faculty members, a better library, renovated classrooms, toilets, seminar halls, common rooms and auditorium, provision of a moot court hall, certain electronic equipments around campus and inclusion of clinical papers and internships in the curriculum.

BCI would be extracting a penalty of Rs 1.5 lakh for every academic year that DU law centres’ inspection was due but DU did not apply for it, it was stated in the report.

The inspection follows the BCI temporarily having halted the enrolment of DU students last year by disaffiliating the law school for allegedly not following the regulator’s rules.

However, by November, the BCI had allowed DU graduates to enrol provisionally.

BCI joint secretary Ashok K Pandey had on 12 January written to DU’s law centre administration:

Looking to the interest of the students the committee recommends approval of affiliation till session 2014-2015. However, show cause notice be sent to Vice Chancellor, all the heads, Deans and three Professors Incharge of all the three Centres of Delhi University to reply within eight weeks to the adverse report of the inspection team. After receipt of the same, the matter be put up for consideration.

Bansal had, after this letter, vowed that DU would not bow to the BCI, as reported by Legally India.

Bansal had criticised the report harshly, claiming that the BCI did not have the power to exercise the powers over DU that it was seeking to exercise, such as limiting classroom hours only to the daytime.

He had also alleged that the report was biased, riddled with errors, and had singled out DU whereas there were 1,200 colleges in the country that the BCI had not inspected.

Bansal’s impression

The inspection committee alleged in the report that DU’s vice chancellor (VC) had “been kept in dark” about the law centres’ condition and that it was the “sole responsibility of the Dean of the Faculty of Law to put a correct picture before [the VC]”, and that the Dean’s “terror” “reins high” among DU’s students and faculty.

The committee also hinted that Bansal had tried to influence the inspection.

Relevant extracts:

We are members of the team are of the view that the Vice-Chancellor of the University and competent authority has been kept in dark completely otherwise the conditions of the University should be deteriorated. It is the sole responsibility of the Dean of the Faculty of Law to put a correct picture before the authority…

One to one meeting which has been taken with the students and the teachers clearly demonstrated that there is lot of tension on the mind of both and they have phycopher [sic] due to the conduct of the Dean's of the faculty of law whose terror it appears reins high among the ad hoc teachers…

It was surprising there were sizable number of boys whose stood up to support the Dean's office and efficiency which runs even counter to centres own report which that submitted at the time of inspection. There boys' loudly supporting the actions of the Dean both academically and in the field of administration and it was the same set of students who were present at the time of inspection of all the three centres. This indicates that there was an attempt that there should not fair inspection and touting version of the students should be taken as grasper truth likewise similar was the approach of some of the ad-hoc teachers. In fact, the committee had twice requested the Dean to leave the Committee alone while interacting with the staff and the students individually and collectively and it was thereafter only whatever has been mentioned above regarding non-payment of salary and repeated harassment at the time of interview would come to surface.

One-sixteenth the infrastructure

The report states that when the Campus Law Centre was constructed in 1963 it was constructed for 250 students, and now (with barely any increase in its campus size) it provides (or rather fails by all means to provide) for 4,000 students.

It has 57 total rooms out of which 32 are teachers' cubicles and nine rooms are classrooms for the three-year LLB program, while five are LLM classrooms. Other than this there is a room each for the professor in charge, office, teachers' common room, legal aid cell, girls’ common room, students union, seminar hall, auditorium, library and “case material shed”.

There are seven toilets and two lawns. There is no canteen for students and no moot court hall. The number of students in each section of a class is far more than permitted under UGC rules and BCI rules.

Broken window panes, dysfunctional fans, old furniture, and inadequate seating capacity feature in these rooms.

Extracts:

The committee had been informed that the University authorities are likely to shift the campus Centre II also in these very premises as inspection report of Centre would show the number of students at present is 1389 with 9 sections in first year, 6 sections in second year and 5 in 3rd year, We are afraid though the building shown where it is to be located in future would hopelessly in adequate. In fact the present premises namely ARSD College building the infrastructure is far more superior than the combined one of campus law centre and law centre-I. Except that it has no place for proper library and the reason is oblivious that the Centre is handicap because it has no independent building of its own…

The Dean of the Faculty of Law as stated above has mentioned that Law Centre II is also likely to be shifted in these very premises and he showed the place also that auditorium, the building is likely to be converted in Law Centre - II as stated above and at the cost of reputation a premises which was originally meant for accommodating 250 students would then carry a load of more than 5000 students and numbers still go on increasingly with the increase of population then it i a mess for that number of present even to remain standing in the entire campus much less the class rooms…

Most of the classrooms are having leakage on the rook and it appears that no funds are utilised for proper maintenance of the building as well as the furniture not even that what to say of coolers or air conditioning even fans in most of the rooms are not working or making noise." "auditorium which is the capacity of accommodating 200 students had only 50 chairs available out of which only 30 to 40 students were worthy of occupying rest was broken, This auditorium is being utilised as one of the classrooms.

Ad-hoc faculty

DU law at present has 28 ad hoc faculty members, each of whom is paid a gross monthly salary of Rs 56,080.

There are four guest faculty members who are paid Rs 1,000 per lecture and can take a maximum of 25 lectures.

“We were informed that ever since 2005 there had been no regular appointments of law teachers,” the committee stated in the report. “Conditions of the teachers are miserable in the main Center and LC-I wholly inadequate teachers room cubicles are not even of bathroom size and absolutely no facility for having cup of tea during a relaxed period.”

“More than 60 per cent teachers appointed in all three centers are on adhoc basis. Get their salaries after interview hence they have insecurity of jobs sword Damocles. As always hanging on their neck and therefore with irregular appointment on contractual salaries.”

Evening classes

One of the recommendations of the committee was for DU to hold classes continuously for five-and-a-half hours between 8am and 7pm only, with a half hour break in between.

The report stated:

We also came to know from the records that Law Centre - I is a also using the class rooms for its 615 to 915pm shift. The Campus Law Centre needs to have more class rooms, Moot Court Room, Placement Room, Big Legal Aid Room, Boys Common room, Girls Common Room, office room for the staff and teaching faculty.

DU’s Law Centres’ total annual fees are Rs 7,000 currently but the centres received a UGC grant of Rs 120 crore in 2008, according to a response to an RTI received by CLC first year student Tarun Narang, who currently has a writ petition against the law school pending in the Delhi high court.

BCI Report on Delhi University by legallyindia