We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
1. As an IOE Jindal has special autonomy
2. It is not cast in stone that professor mist have a PhD or X years experience. Look at the appointments made by MP Singh at NUJS and now by Sudhir at NLSIU.
Someone please answer the original question.
How do these two professions reconcile under the BCI rules?
"51. An advocate may review Parliamentary Bills for a remuneration, edit legal text books at a salary, do press-vetting for newspapers, coach pupils for legal examination, set and examine question papers; and subject to the rules against advertising and full-time employment, engage in broadcasting, journalism, lecturing and teaching subjects, both legal and non-legal."
Under 51 you're allowed to lecture as long as it's not full time. Not sure what the terms are at Jindal. But if they are on retainer contracts and not employment contracts, and these contracts allow them to go on with regular practice, I don't see the issue.
It's not just Jindal which has to follow minimum eligibility conditions to be appointed as academician as prescribed by UGC. The IOE regulations make it absolutely clear. Please read from the above link. The problem is, who is enforcing them? BCI for sure is more interested in collecting it's fee rather than do the real inspection.
11.3.2 The Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University shall have complete autonomy in the
appointment of faculty, promotions etc including the autonomy to offer them emoluments and perks
commensurate with their standing as it deems fit."
I might be misreading this, but does the act not say IOE's have complete autonomy with respect to faculty appointment and that they are exempt from all other UGC regulations?
I wonder why no one has mentioned The Advocates (Right to Take up Law Teaching) Rules, 1979 yet.
Subject to certain restrictions, you are allowed to teach law in a uni and be an advocate. And frankly, it's better to have law taught by someone who knows the practical side of it. A lot of (now senior) advocates have taught at TLCs while practicing in their early days.