The constitution of Student Bar Council of NALSAR was set to be amended through a referendum this week. The amendment involved major changes such as integration of the management and LLM batches into the council as well as co-presidentship for IPM and LLB batches and eligibility of MBA and LLM students for presidentship and vice-presidentship. However, according to the constitution only LLB students are eligible voters for any referendum to be conducted to amend the constitution. This sparked a protest by the management students against the administration and LLB with a series of hateful anonymous emails being exchanged. This whole issue has brought forth the debate of whether NLUs as poorly funded state universities can be self-sustainable and how introduction of ancillary courses for revenue generation into the already cramped spaces can lead to more complications. The two extremes of the debate can be summarised as one side demanding total and radical equality in terms of student body elections, while the other demanding a purposive interpretation of the NALSAR act and the SBC constitution to give positions proportionately and exclude students who do not stay in the University for more than 2 years from high exec posts. The problem is rooted in the imagination of NLUs as poorly funded, state universities and majorly reliant on expensive fees charged from the students, leaving no option for the administration to get revenues from ancillary courses such as management and policy. While the conflict can be avoided by communication and adequate representation, it is high time that the unified alumni and student body strongly pose for getting NLUs recognised as Institutes of Eminence and possibly nationalise the institutions to get adequate funding. Otherwise, the already poor condition of the legal fraternity of India would be worsened. It is unfortunate that despite recognising that legal education and practice is a domain dominated by elitism and nepotism, no steps are taken to improve the prominent legal institutions, let alone the rest of them. This is the reason why most of the academia is also moving towards elite factories such as Jindal which offer higher pays and more opportunities. Again, HIGH TIME THAT ALUMNI OF NLUs DEMAND RECOGNITION AS INSTITUTES OF EMINENCE AND MORE FUNDINGS

Not sure why this has heading as civil war at Nalsar. Naming Civil war for the protest by IPM/MBA students or having differences in opinion among students on student bar council of Nalsar is exaggeration. Has UGC granted permission to Nalsar to introduce management academia as ancillary to law courses to support the funding? With the limited knowledge or visibility that I have, I don’t think anywhere it was mentioned management courses in Nalsar. Nalsar administration or UGC may have to clarify or publish if they are ancillary courses. Why protests for the equality in student body election is radical demand? Some management or law courses may end in two years / one year that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have representation in my opinion unless the constitution clearly calls it out student body representation is only for long term academia . Totally agree that the conflict could have avoided by having continuous communication, collaboration from both the sides having their representation but not exchanging hateful emails or conversation from either side. Also agree that NLUs DEMAND RECOGNITION AS INSTITUTES OF EMINENCE AND MORE FUNDINGS.

It seems reasonable for students not in the five year program to have some representation so they might also have collective dialogue with the administration. It also seems reasonable that the five year program students do not want to cede positions in their student body committee to folks who might not be around as long and might not face the long term impact of administrative actions. Why does nalsar need to have only one SBC ? Why can it not have multiple SBCs - one for undergraduate students and one for graduate students ? Surely the concerns of both those groups would naturally be different ? Don’t these programmes already have different RCCs ?

Why not I give you a better idea, that I gave a years ago, and still was shot down by the stupid UG kids cause "we alumni, they not alumni. Elitism. Entitled. blah blah blah..." Keep the core student body, especially the major post for LLB students since they have to remain longer in the university. Whereas, provide a honorary post to the masters student, and an advisory post to the PhDs, if they want. Just include one or two representatives from the batch. Simple. Why do you need to have elections for them ? Why do you need them to participate? Just have their CR be the ex-officio honorary member of the body. They represent their batch, that's it. What's happening in campus is relayed to them, and if they're facing any problems that can also be addressed by the body. Simple as that.

I suppose the fundamental problem with that proposal is that it’s not democratic- graduate students like undergraduates are diverse and need elections to fairly decide who would represent their interests.

And a secondary problem might be that you’re offering them visibility while not offering them a voice.Interests of graduate students are different from those of undergraduates not just because they spend less time at the university but because they play a different role in it and are in university for a different purpose at a different point in their lives.

Undergraduates maybe hyperfocused on corporate recruitments or on extracurriculars like moots and debates. Graduate students might be more concerned about teaching assistant pay and funding for doctoral scholars and availability of resources that enable their research work and adequate supervision. They might need assistance with placement in the academic job market which is entirely different from what undergraduates are focused on.

Even on a more mundane level- undergrads might be reasonably happy living in hostels as they are, but graduate students who are married might want housing options that allows them to live with their spouse and or child while also ensuring they don’t have to travel all the way to the city. Undergraduates might be happy with the nutrition provided by the mess, but graduate students might want kitchen access either communal or in their living quarters so they can prepare meals more suitable for adult metabolism.

Why can’t grad students form their own grad student union and negotiate with the administration independently of whatever the undergraduates do ? This is essentially what happens in universities abroad- why the need to force them to play out minimised roles in your SBC?

Surely your SBC will not lose any legitimacy or power if the graduate students elect their own student leaders and negotiate difficult problems with the administration on their own terms ? No one could assert that an SBC made up entirely of undergraduates does anything to help grad students- the only reason the SBC has legitimacy is because it seeks to help undergrads and represents them!

This isn’t a zero sum game. This isn’t about who is top dog on campus or who the campus really belongs to - the campus doesn’t really belong to any one kind of person. It doesn’t belong to undergrads or grad students or professors or the VC or staff- it’s a state institution.

This is about whether students are able to get a fair shake from the administration and organise as they wish. I really don’t see why this is even a conflict let alone a civil war.

I don’t see any reason why graduate students should not form their own collective bargaining organisation. Why they even want to be on the llb SBC is a mystery to me- maybe they lack imagination.

An update on the situation: Panic was created by one more incompetent move of the VC Sri Krishna Deva Rao when he chose to say that the student bar council and the SBC constitution of the LLB batches has been "disbanded" and elections will be on hold till the administration itself decides a new 'just' constitution . This led to the meeting of all the LLB students in which (apart from a few politically motivated individuals and remarks) it was decided to protest against the Vice chancellor's statement. A protest was held in front of the VC office and meeting hall inside of which a faculty meeting was taking place. The main concerns were that the administration cannot take such a drastic step of disbanding the constitution and creating a new constitution for the students and that how will day to day tasks be handled if the SBC is indefinitely suspended. Few of the faculty and eventually the VC came out and did course correction by recognising that they had made "the wrong choice of words" and eventually another email was sent from the Vice Chancellor's ID that the SBC is alive but the constitution needs changes. Firstly, this is just one of the many incidents which is a result of the sheer foolishness and complacency of the new administration headed by Sri Krishna Deva Rao. He just seems to be out of touch of the needs of students on almost every front. While he is sensitive and takes the right decision when pushed adequately, but he is too meek and hard-headed to know by himself what are the issues and creating a vision to address long-term issues. If someone on this platform is in touch with him, please tell him that if NALSAR has to maintain its reputation he has to have a vision for its growth and for that to happen he needs to know atleast the mundane issues students are facing! Just go and talk to the students for once please! Secondly, it is again a re-emphasis on the fact that how NLUs in general are out of touch from the practices of academia of the most advanced institutions across the world and are in hands of people who don't know how to handle a multi-cultural crowd with highly ambitious people. This brings us again to the very idea of NLUs being almost irrelevant state-run universities with small-sized campuses and miniature budgets. It won't be wrong to say that NLUs are the forgotten children of each state government and the Union Government. A serious overhaul is needed to improve the situation. This should begin with drastically increasing the budgets of each and every NLU so that they can atleast have manageable infrastructure and decent faculty and not company secretaries with fraud PHDs teaching company law to future corporate lawyers. If this happens, then the administration won't need to resort to uncomfortable solution of creating new non-law departments for just increasing revenue. In all of the NLUs it is unsustainable from infrastructure and quality of education point of view. I hope some important people read this thread and decide to atleast talk about this amongst themselves.

Lol. How long did it take for you to realise that NLUs are nothing but glorified state universities? Imagine paying lakhs to be drowned by debt and then forced to be a corporate paper pusher just to repay that debt and still be treated as a nobody in the real legal world of litigators and judges. Cry me a river

Well said. NLUs are state universities well past their prime and orphaned by their respective state governments, which is something that all NLU-bhakts on this platform have to contend with. NLUs are slowly but surely fading away into the realms of irrelevance. They are not part of the national narrative. No central minister will touch them even with 20 feet long barge pole.

I'm so glad that my life is so much better studying in faculty of law. I don't have to pay an exorbitant amount of money, classes are only for a few hours, can practice in any court almost every single day, don't have to wait for vacations, the study material is provided, don't have to rely on professors with zero experience, don't have to get involved in all this BS politics, can easily hang out with the masters and PhD students without any remorse, can sit & learn from all depts in DU, plus will probably get a better option than being a corp slave. And my degree is from a central university. Lol.

Why can't NLUs be inclusive? Every other university is. Why do you need to get them involved in the main politics of the university ? Just tell them to choose a CR, or two, And that CR becomes a honorary member of the body. They just represent the LLM batch. They just sit in meetings to be informed that so & so events are taking place in the university, or these are the problems that need to be addressed. Moreover, hear their problems, their worries. Just cause they aren't UG kids anymore doesn't mean they wouldn't have their own grievances against the administration. Also what's the role of the SBC ? To protect every students right.. Are they not students ? Are the also not living far away from their families ? Don't they get a voice to be heard ? Also cut down on the elitism, these same LLMs may have been part of their SBCs, the may also have immense experience on how to handle certain things, learn from them, take their advice. It's only in NLUs which has this divide & rule policy created by students. In the end, the administration wins !

Only sane reply. Students divided amongst themselves and admin enjoying the division. SBCs should be all inclusive. Moreover they're there only for a year, treat them as guests, their presence won't impact the long term situation, but their absence will hurt the climate immediately.