Research here: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/faculty-composition-in-indian-nlus-examining-contractual-vs-regular-appointments

For those who may not be able to access the post later: http://archive.today/FBPGI

The data shows that NLU Delhi far surpasses the other NLUs (including NLS) by a margin so large that the other figures are laughable. Important to note is that there will be a presumption that those who did not submit NIRF data did not have much to show (as is mentioned in the article as well).

Just like all other NIRF data given by NLUD, this one too is a lie. They certainly don't have 120 faculty as they have claimed. Even if a person visits the campus once and offers a couple of guest lectures, they show that person as 'faculty'. After median salary, this is yet another instance of the fraud that this institute commits on a regular basis. At this rate, they won't have any credibility left.

The people who did the research have made multiple assumptions, which may be true from their own career perspective, but can be contested on the ground of reality. I am not talking about the NIRF data itself, which is by now dubious at best. My point is about the assumption that permanent faculty always fare better in terms of adding greater value to the institution by way of research, classroom teaching etc. Most people who have studied at various NLUs would attest to the fact that every NLU has way too much dead wood in terms of permanent faculty who represent a liability to the institution and a drain on its resources. Their teaching quality is sub-par, they rarely update themselves and they either don't publish/research at all, or their papers are also of abysmal quality, or even worse, built on exploited student labour. The administration has got no way of throwing these people out because they have got permanent jobs, nor can they be denied promotion because the bar for UGC promotions is ridiculously low. On the other hand, had these people even had a 3-Year or 5-Year contract with all other assorted benefits that come from permanent positions (PF, gratuity, leave, health plan), then the institution could have dispensed with their services after that expired. It is true that contractual faculty would be operating under restrictions insofar as the present system is concerned, such as not being able to stand up against the admin or give in to irrational student demands lest their contracts are terminated, but the solution is to make the renewal process much robust and based on objective parameters, not to make everyone permanent all at once. At the very least, we should adopt a tenure-track system like in the UK or USA, with everyone starting on a contract and then if they prove themselves to be good, then be made permanent after 3 years or 5 years. If anything, that will ensure that the faculty will always have incentives to deliver best performances, do quality research and publications and actively seek projects to bring much needed fund and exposure to the institutes too. That is in the interest of Indian legal education at present, not the 'sarkari-naukri' style permanence, followed by inevitable indolence. The administration needs to convey assurance to the promising ones that their job won't be at stake, and at the same time, communicate to the others that they need to pull up their socks if they wish to remain there.

In addition, every new faculty must be made to go through at least a few demo classes before students as well as existing faculty before they are allowed to teach unsupervised in the degree programmes. That would at least act as a filter for the worst sort, who cannot even communicate effectively or do not have the slightest of ideas about the subjects that they would be asked to teach. A mentorship system should also be in place wherein the faculty with better repute can be shadowed by the junior for at least a semester or two when it comes to classroom teaching or research. Professor Menon himself used to advocate for such a system, but that is barely in vogue anymore.

Finally, the students also need to get their acts together if they wish to be taught by good faculty. Academic discipline must be followed, especially if they see the faculty making effort to teach them well. Refraining from umpteen excuses for not doing assignments, seeking extensions and exemptions, easy grades, lack of advance reading, and providing useful and timely feedback and putting pressure on the administration to act on the basis of such feedback, these are practices that the students may also consider adopting if they really wish to have the quality of their classroom education enhanced. Just because a faculty is not giving in to every student demand, that does not mean that they do not know what the students actually need. Adherence to quality and empathy are both essential traits of a good teacher.

While I agree with a lot with your substance, you say that the research made assumptions that permanent faculty is better (a substantive issue) and then in the entire comment speak about how to make teachers permanent (a procedural issue). Even you, in your comment, assume the former in order to be able to elaborate on the latter. Nowhere in the research have they proposed particular methods of making faculty permanent or said everyone should be made permanent automatically. What are you on about?

Sorry what is the claim here? That a university should have 80! teachers who are not regularised? That thats desirable? Its absolutely not. The more professors who are regularised the better any administration is doing.

This is whats happened. NLS hires 6 "visiting assistant profs" a year - and claims these are ad hoc faculty- which is what they are. But they dont list all the faculty they hire to teach electives every term as non regularised faculty.

My sense is that NLUD does not have 80 full time ad hoc professors- that would literally be insane. They must be listing everyone who offered an elective course in there.