That is because most teachers fail to connect it with the other law subjects. If you can do that, then the study becomes quite enjoyable. It might be a good idea for individual subjects to spend a few classes on related jurisprudence.
It really depends on who teaches you and how. Taught well it is a course that allows a person to understand how theories are applicable all around us in everyday interactions. It allows one to open conversations with vastly varied 'fields' of investigation by reading through the connective thread of theory.
I now teach at Jindal and would wish to note that Prof Amita Dhanda was someone who really brought the subject alive for me at NALSAR.
JGLS has a legend named Oishik Sircar. He is/was (not sure) a visiting faculty at NLS. Back in 2019 he was teaching an elective in NLS on Violence, memory and justice. He is an excellent teacher. But apart from that he is spearheading Indian and global queer jurisprudence. He was cited by the SC in Navtej Singh Johar (Section 377). Sircar, along with other JGLS faculty members, had filed an impleading application in the Suresh Koushal case in the Supreme Court and were part of the litigation team challenging Section 377 of the IPC. I have attended his classes and he makes a subject like jurisprudence really interesting.
[...] After doing my Masters, I realised that the text and engaging with discourse (with any consistent methodology) seriously is what's most important academically. Amit Bindal and Lakshmi Arya are in fact the real underrated legends of Jindal. They not only deal with the text brilliantly, but also show you how to closely read (and how not to read) texts. Needless to say, Bindal's obsession is also with what's not said (the unconscious) in the text.
NLUO has one of the best jurisprudence professor in India. Abhik Majumder teaches in the most unconventional way with his often 'biryani' related examples and out of the box examination pattern. I believe if subjects are taught like this, the entire law fraternity would learn so much more. As far as I know, he is an NLS alum '99 and a NUS LLM alum '00.
Was taught Juris by Pritam Baruah and an elective called Common Law Mind by Pritam and Shivprasad Swaminathan. Best courses in Law School. Also took classes by Oishik Sircar and Dipika Jain. I find both of them overrated. They don't engage with the text rigorously and the classes were a bit airy-fairy and superficial. They discuss what's in vogue and stuff but hardly engage in close readings of the texts like Pritam and Shiv does. Teaching a juris course myself now, and I find the discursive and doctrinal method of Pritam and Shiv to be the most effective way to deal with the complexity and nuance of the subject.
To be honest, the best teachers of Juris are not those activist types working in specific sub-fields/issues. Old faculty at Law School like Pillai were excellent with dense juris texts (like Hart, Devlin and such). Rahul did a good job teaching it as well, some may remember the Rainmaker AIBE guides - his volume on juris is quite good.
This piece is actually archaic, but thought it may provide some context to younger folks.
During the inception years of NLS, Juris was taught by the trio of Professors: Devi Das, Mallar & Vijaya Kumar. They also taught Pol Sci & Consti. Invariably all three courses got mixed up as they were overlapping conceptually. From the first year onwards (think second trim onwards) till about fourth year (again think eleventh trim) the three profs were present in all of the trims in between.
Though they were GLC outputs (using the def popular on LI) they were leagues ahead of then current pedagogy. Most students never saw such discussions, teaching, openness, etc. Atleast not in Indian academia at that point of time. It was refreshing: You could tell them they were totally wrong, and they would spend time with you trying to discuss it.
Last byte is on the library exam and take home exam that was given in the Juris II or III papers (don't recollect exactly). A prof needs to have a lot of courage to do that, and it showed the confidence they had in themselves and their pedagogy.
@Comment 5: I fully agree with the criticisms of Oishik and Dipika as airy-fairy. The fundamental problem is this : jurisprudence is a subject about LAW and NOT about culture studies, film studies, poetry, music, queer studies, Marxism, Foucault, Judith Butler, critical race theory, Periyar, Hindutva, intersectional feminism, racism in Enid Blyton etc. That is NOT what jurisprudence is about. That is a separate elective subject, which proponents call "Postmodern Critical Theory" and critics call "Work Studies".
I kind of sympathise with Comment 5, who calls jurisprudence useless. I believe that it has been MADE useless by certain professors who are taking the JURIS out of jurisprudence.
Jurisprudence should be taught with reference to LEGAL thinkers and people should be made to read hard cases, policy documents and apply concepts. It is applicable even in commercial contexts. For example, the legalities surrounding tax havens, information monopoly by Facebook etc., with reference to actual statutes and case law + legal theorists like Bentham, Hart etc.
I hope Oishik and Dipika take this in the right spirit.
I too am in full agreement with the criticism of Oishik and Dipika. While they have best intentions, they unfortunately marginalize the law in their courses. That said, I don't think "postmodern critical theory" is necessarily antithetical to a study of jurisprudence and it needn't be considered "separate". All of what you mention can be used productively to unravel the law as long as, of course, law is the main component. Dipika and Oishik should reconceptualize their courses keeping law at the center of focus. Even Spivak (whatever the criticisms of her are), considered to be a major figure in Crit Theory, admits that we cannot not have law in our discourses.
As far as I remember, their course was called "Jurisprudence II", which is, as you rightly point out, misrepresentative given that it was critical theory more and juris and legal engagement less.
As one of the most misunderstood courses in undergraduate studies, I believe it's incumbent on the professor to make it exciting and engaging to all sections of students. If that's the primary measurement of doing well in the classroom, Pritam Baruah is a disappointment, and Arun is a rockstar. But their mastery over the subject is undeniable.
I have attended their classes, Baruah's during my undergrad days and Arun's after I became a lawyer.
I now teach at Jindal and would wish to note that Prof Amita Dhanda was someone who really brought the subject alive for me at NALSAR.
OTOH, Arun Sagar & Rehan Abeyratne (who has now left) are AMAZING jurisprudence teachers.
I genuinely loved Arun Sagar's classes, his way of teaching, grasp over subject.
Oh, and Amit Bindal. Legend.
During the inception years of NLS, Juris was taught by the trio of Professors: Devi Das, Mallar & Vijaya Kumar. They also taught Pol Sci & Consti. Invariably all three courses got mixed up as they were overlapping conceptually. From the first year onwards (think second trim onwards) till about fourth year (again think eleventh trim) the three profs were present in all of the trims in between.
Though they were GLC outputs (using the def popular on LI) they were leagues ahead of then current pedagogy. Most students never saw such discussions, teaching, openness, etc. Atleast not in Indian academia at that point of time. It was refreshing: You could tell them they were totally wrong, and they would spend time with you trying to discuss it.
Last byte is on the library exam and take home exam that was given in the Juris II or III papers (don't recollect exactly). A prof needs to have a lot of courage to do that, and it showed the confidence they had in themselves and their pedagogy.
As far as I know, the latter was the first such course taught in any law school, dealt with "juridical unconscious" and trauma of and in the law.
I kind of sympathise with Comment 5, who calls jurisprudence useless. I believe that it has been MADE useless by certain professors who are taking the JURIS out of jurisprudence.
Jurisprudence should be taught with reference to LEGAL thinkers and people should be made to read hard cases, policy documents and apply concepts. It is applicable even in commercial contexts. For example, the legalities surrounding tax havens, information monopoly by Facebook etc., with reference to actual statutes and case law + legal theorists like Bentham, Hart etc.
I hope Oishik and Dipika take this in the right spirit.
I too am in full agreement with the criticism of Oishik and Dipika. While they have best intentions, they unfortunately marginalize the law in their courses. That said, I don't think "postmodern critical theory" is necessarily antithetical to a study of jurisprudence and it needn't be considered "separate". All of what you mention can be used productively to unravel the law as long as, of course, law is the main component. Dipika and Oishik should reconceptualize their courses keeping law at the center of focus. Even Spivak (whatever the criticisms of her are), considered to be a major figure in Crit Theory, admits that we cannot not have law in our discourses.
As far as I remember, their course was called "Jurisprudence II", which is, as you rightly point out, misrepresentative given that it was critical theory more and juris and legal engagement less.
I have attended their classes, Baruah's during my undergrad days and Arun's after I became a lawyer.