Hello

I recently moved back from States after pursuing a master's from NYU and want to enrol for PhD at NLSIU Bangalore because of the excellent profile of PhD scholars who are part of the course.

Unfortunately, I just got to know that Sudhir has stalled presentations, viva-voce and final certificates of scholars. Should I consider applying for PhD at NSLIU considering that Sudhir is sitting on all PhD files?

I mean, is there anything to show that this is the case apart from gossip? I know people have been presenting their PhD work at nls as their viva vice component even this past month. Also I don’t know if gossiping about the VC on an anonymous forum before you’ve even joined the university is good form.

You are right. There have been people who have submitted their thesis over 6 months before, and Sudhir is simply sitting on those because he doesn't like the concerned guide. This is as petty as it gets. People have missed out on jobs because of this. It is not expected from a senior law scholar and adminstrator of a premier institution.

There are legitimate criticisms of Sudhir, but this ain’t it. He is cleaning up the entire PG scene at Law School, and the most urgent review was required for the PhD. Uninspiring drivel that was passing off for research has been reigned in. Doctoral students are supposed to do serious literature review, and advance the state of the field. Through robust guidance, and strict assessment he is weeding out the nonsense from before. For instance, the PhD programme now takes only 5-6 people a year. And already admitted candidates are being held to a very high standard of review before award of degrees. If people are not ready to do world class research as part of their PhD, then they shouldn’t aspire to Law School.

Clearing up phd or PG programme is welcoming, for which requires academic regress and not administrative delays. A blanket presumption that those who conducted research prior to 2019 did not have strong literature review is absurd. It would be nice to have a look at some of the thesis available in the library for reference. Leaving that aside
Months long delay in issuing a provincial certificate after clearing the academic demands set forward by the VC himself is not academic regress but a patent lapse of administrative duty. Non conformity of time line set up the university cannot be treated as a practice suitable for “top institute”
There is no dispute to the capability of the VC , but transparency and clarity would be nice. Having the opportunity to witness some “world class university “ , some of the current practices seems to move the unty in from the entire purpose for which “the law school” was established. It was not meant to be an island of knowledge . Before we compare ourself to world class university, how about looking at some of their practices of having a clarity ? How does it justify to have a retrospective application of regulation ? How is justifiable that natural justice principles are blatantly violated ? 9 scholars have completed the viva so far between September to
March , based on the green signal by the evaluators. Who has been given a PDC ? If the recommendation of PDGC is wrong, recommendation of evaluators is wrong.. then it is sufficient that one person sits through the entire process, why have 6 external reviews at two stage followed by a final presentation and viva ? Keeping all side, the scholar has the right to know the cause of delay and the mistake they have made within reasonable time.
We are not here for a war or it is not about right or wrong. It’s above learning and in a institution like this, if learning is not in its true spirit .. well well

This has nothing to do with anti or pro VC . It is simply on the administrative lapse.
This is not intended to hurt anyones feeling, all we ask forth is clarity and transparency in communication along with predictable with reasonable timelines.
(Now please don’t give me the argument of work load of a standalone university because this is not the first unty in the country )

Lol, its not an administrative lapse. It is the Sudhir Ego. Unless he himself is convinced, then no institutional design view can achieve anything. For instance, he took issue with the re-evaluation process for exams, fair enough - it needs to be made logically. But his solution? The VC will personally recheck papers and rule on whether the evaluation was correct or not. Where on earth is this fair process? At least earlier, it used to go to some external panel or the other (however weak their credentials). Now, one VC will sit and directly review every paper?

Same attitude and arrogance on display here with this PhD business.