A new issue has emerged at NALSAR related to hostel accommodation. Recently, students protested and secured an assurance from SKDR that no 4th or 5th-year student shall be asked to move into a double occupancy hostel room; they will be provided single occupancy rooms only. Additionally, SKDR promised that NALSAR will construct new and improved hostels for junior students and will allocate BH4 to only 4th and 5th years on a single occupancy basis. However, it has now come to light that NALSAR has not made any concrete plans to fulfill these promises. The administration has only planned to acquire more land, which, as we all know, will take 2 to 3 years at a minimum for land acquisition and hostel construction, contradicting SKDR’s assurances.
Additionally, there was a plan to convert SHs 1, 2, and 3 into classrooms, but this has encountered controversy as DOMS students oppose it for reasons best known to them.
This has led to a significant amount of strife on campus and has created a Law vs Management scenario. Many law students are now expressing opposition to including DOMS students in the SBA and other decision-making bodies. They fear that DOMS students, particularly the current 2nd-year IPM students, will use their committee positions to block law students' initiatives.
Can't blame SKDR for this. The nonsensical MBA and IPM thing was FM's dumb idea. And honestly, these programs have actually eroded the NALSAR brand rather than making it better.
DOMS brings in the money which is used by the so called entitled lot to participate in moot courts and have useless events. Grow up and stop demanding. If anyone is worth anything, it is the IPM students who pay almost double the fees and get less than half of what they rightfully deserve.
Fair enough. That's NALSAR's fault though. Starting a compromised course with half-ass ambitions so they can support some law students. Honestly, even a tier-3 IIM's IPM course like IIM Jammu or Bodh Gaya should be preferred over NALSAR if this is how they treat students.
I think that the students do not really have any right to demand single seater rooms. As in, there is no obligation on the university's part to furnish them with such.
That is want was promised to the batch of 2026 and 2027 when we joined.
We only want to claim our legitimate rights as promised by NALSAR. We did not ask for FM to give impetus to DOMS and should not be forced to bear the consequences of it.
If only being promised something created 'legitimate rights!' Promises create expectations, duties create rights. I have previously taught at NALSAR and think the biggest disservice FM did to the place was make jurisprudence/legal theory an elective course.
they didnt have a person to teach it. SC couldnt take on more course load. and as someone who learned a lot from D- she can handwave many of these basic concepts because it doesnt suit her ideology.
They had many at the time Jurisprudence was done away with. Of the top of my head - Sid Chu (who had just joined and did not have any other course set for him), Manav Kapur (now finishing his PhD at Princeton), Anshuman Shukla (now at Jindal, previously did LLM at Cambridge), Ajey Sangai (now doing PhD at McGill), Jagteshwar Sohi (now doing PhD at Osgoode Hall), and Ashwini Kumar (wasted at NALSAR teaching CPC).
All 6 of them were theory people who were at NALSAR at the same time between 2011 and 2015. Plus, Dhanda was still years away from retiring. Had FM put in half the effort to retain these people as he did for his YT efforts of educating India, NALSAR could have moved into 2020s with a large concentration of people solid in theory who could cover multiple other subjects.
Between them this lot taught English, Legal Methods, Constitution, International Law, Law & Poverty, Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Property Law, and Civil Procedure. That’s 9 different core courses. They all ran a variety of other electives and seminars. FM let each and everyone of them go.
Oh I completely agree with you. I was talking about today's situation. Back in 2013- Sid C could have easily taught it. His political obligations and interpretation of statutes electives did cover many important jurists anyway. Manav did the legal theory llm at NYU- he could have taught it. Ajey could definitely have taught it. They made these guys teach contracts or something iirc. It was embarrassing. I think it was just the powers that be being territorial and not trusting younger faculty even when there was a desperate need.
The legal methods module is supposed to be some ersatz jurisprudence course but it really does a poor job at both teaching jurisprudence and at teaching methods. So you have second year students who cannot accurately tell you the ratio of olga tellis or what a grundnorm or core and penumbra mean. The course clearly had an ideological bent and did a disservice to positivist scholarship because of the teachers beliefs. I got a D in the course and I still came away believing ridiculous things about positivists and even more ridiculous things about natural law theories.
But what compounds that error is the failure through the years to not offer the jurisprudence course consistently enough by someone who isnt an idealogue, just a scholar.
SC's classes were the first time i had a not-lopsided fair representation of positivism - because we actually read HLA Hart and Joseph Raz. Overnight I changed my POV and his course saved me from the ignorance and knowledge bubble created by more left wing professors on campus who do not want to actually engage deeply with their opponents.
Rights talk is getting crazy in law school where anything anyone wants is a "right" . as if the government/ university/ increase authority here is some santa claus that exists to fulfil wishes instead of yknow- a people created institution that has to balance rights of several stakeholders who disagree. All of this can be headed off with basic jurisprudence course.
god u batch of 2026 and 2028 guys are just a bunch of snobs, u guys are literally ushering the new toxicity that existed back in the day and the previous batches actively avoided
its snobbish and toxic to know what rights are and arent? so your argument by implication is that as soon as someone claims something is a right everyone else should just accede? have you really thought that through?
Most law schools in India only have part time PhDs. Very few scholars are there on campus full time. On pen and paper though, they are shown as full time PhDs.
How cute is your naivety! Literally no one does an actual ‘full time’ PhD in law in India. Do you think it is all accident that each of those people named above are pursuing doctoral work abroad?
Not in NALSAR per my experience. I know at one point we had about 60 people enrolled. This is mid to late 2010s. And I don’t know if any one of them was full time. The last one I remember being full time is Payala Narayan (spelling could be very wrong, but those who know will know). And this was way back. A couple of years before him we had that Haryanvi dude - Saangu bhaiya. And Nigam/Nikam. Maybe there was one other guy after this lot, was in the Air and Space thingie. Never spoke with him. So not sure on the name.
Anyhow, not many people did full time PhDs. Not many do even today.
PS: the 6/7 odd people who did integrated LLM-PhD were definitely full time. And financially supported well by the institution. Sorry, forgot about them. In my head it was a separate program.
Before calling out someone else. Check your naivety first and your facts as well.
In India, Part time PhD is only for people with an employment and a NOC from their employer, and it's clearly mentioned in the university website that it's a part time PhD. Full time PhD means no employment except TA or RA within the university. Also, most may be allowed to be asst. Prof if allowed by the university. The list of both part-time & fulltime is submitted to UGC. The reason why is primarily because part time PhDs are not entitled to stipend. Full time PhDs have a right to stipend especially from the university if they're not JRF qualified. That's why JNU pays 8k per month, whereas Tezpur University pays 40k, only to full-time PhDs.
Abroad, every PhD is a part time PhD, including online PhDs, which are not acceptable in India.
'Abroad' isn't one place. Idk which country you are thinking of but most major universities have at least one year's residency requirement and recommend full time for the rest of the PhD. It's just that the Indian you know aren't willing to give up their income so they choose to do part time. It is not a smart choice. You get more out of full time.
On the short point of DOMS vs. LLB, I honestly don't think the law students have any right to throw shade on the management kids. In my limited interaction with them in the last 1-2 years, I've found the DOMS kids full of energy and enthusiasm to do things. On the other hand, there is a sense of entitlement in LLB kids that just keeps increasing unabated. In terms of their attitude towards learning and open mindedness, I'd prefer DOMS over LLB anyday.
Also, to all the LLB kids crying about DOMS, would you rather have a batch size of 300+ kids? I don't think you realise the kind of impact it would have on your placements. Stop whining, and see what you can learn from others.
NALSAR is known for its law program. Sad to see management being introduced at the cost of law. This should be stopped or at the least restricted to some extent.
Additionally, there was a plan to convert SHs 1, 2, and 3 into classrooms, but this has encountered controversy as DOMS students oppose it for reasons best known to them.
This has led to a significant amount of strife on campus and has created a Law vs Management scenario. Many law students are now expressing opposition to including DOMS students in the SBA and other decision-making bodies. They fear that DOMS students, particularly the current 2nd-year IPM students, will use their committee positions to block law students' initiatives.
What do you all think about these developments?
We only want to claim our legitimate rights as promised by NALSAR. We did not ask for FM to give impetus to DOMS and should not be forced to bear the consequences of it.
All 6 of them were theory people who were at NALSAR at the same time between 2011 and 2015. Plus, Dhanda was still years away from retiring. Had FM put in half the effort to retain these people as he did for his YT efforts of educating India, NALSAR could have moved into 2020s with a large concentration of people solid in theory who could cover multiple other subjects.
Between them this lot taught English, Legal Methods, Constitution, International Law, Law & Poverty, Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Property Law, and Civil Procedure. That’s 9 different core courses. They all ran a variety of other electives and seminars. FM let each and everyone of them go.
The legal methods module is supposed to be some ersatz jurisprudence course but it really does a poor job at both teaching jurisprudence and at teaching methods. So you have second year students who cannot accurately tell you the ratio of olga tellis or what a grundnorm or core and penumbra mean. The course clearly had an ideological bent and did a disservice to positivist scholarship because of the teachers beliefs. I got a D in the course and I still came away believing ridiculous things about positivists and even more ridiculous things about natural law theories.
But what compounds that error is the failure through the years to not offer the jurisprudence course consistently enough by someone who isnt an idealogue, just a scholar.
SC's classes were the first time i had a not-lopsided fair representation of positivism - because we actually read HLA Hart and Joseph Raz. Overnight I changed my POV and his course saved me from the ignorance and knowledge bubble created by more left wing professors on campus who do not want to actually engage deeply with their opponents.
Rights talk is getting crazy in law school where anything anyone wants is a "right" . as if the government/ university/ increase authority here is some santa claus that exists to fulfil wishes instead of yknow- a people created institution that has to balance rights of several stakeholders who disagree. All of this can be headed off with basic jurisprudence course.
Anyhow, not many people did full time PhDs. Not many do even today.
PS: the 6/7 odd people who did integrated LLM-PhD were definitely full time. And financially supported well by the institution. Sorry, forgot about them. In my head it was a separate program.
In India, Part time PhD is only for people with an employment and a NOC from their employer, and it's clearly mentioned in the university website that it's a part time PhD. Full time PhD means no employment except TA or RA within the university. Also, most may be allowed to be asst. Prof if allowed by the university. The list of both part-time & fulltime is submitted to UGC. The reason why is primarily because part time PhDs are not entitled to stipend. Full time PhDs have a right to stipend especially from the university if they're not JRF qualified. That's why JNU pays 8k per month, whereas Tezpur University pays 40k, only to full-time PhDs.
Abroad, every PhD is a part time PhD, including online PhDs, which are not acceptable in India.
y with UK English (https://en.bab.la/dictionary/english/naivety)
e with American.
Also, to all the LLB kids crying about DOMS, would you rather have a batch size of 300+ kids? I don't think you realise the kind of impact it would have on your placements. Stop whining, and see what you can learn from others.