Amity Law School Delhi allegedly held only 151 hours of lectures this semester, as against the Bar Council of India (BCI) mandated 648 hours. In the Delhi high court, its final year LLB students have now challenged Amity’s decision to debar the students from taking their exams because of low attendance, reported Live Law.
The final year students and the GGSIP University, to which ALS Delhi is affiliated, asserted that the law school had ended its semester seven days before the deadline specified by the university, as a result of which the students had lost out on marking the minimum attendance needed to sit for exams.
The University had asked Amity to hold those seven days of lectures. In the interim, the BCI visited Amity for suo moto inspection and made the observation that the university’s direction violated Rule 12 of the legal education, rules which stipulates that students should meet their minimum attendance criteria before the end semester exam and not after.
Amity countered the petitioners’ argument in court, under the BCI’s observation as per Rule 12.
Delhi high court justice justice Rekha Palli rejected Amity’s reasoning ruling that the BCI had not given GGSIP university a hearing before making its observation thus violating principles of natural justice. She directed Amity to conduct the seven days of lectures for all those students who wish to attend and make up for their shortage of attendance.
The case will be heard next on 9 July when the court will hear arguments to decide whether the BCI can conduct suo moto inspections on law schools and pass ex parte observations, and how else does it ensure its recognised law colleges follow its stipulations on the minimum lecture hours per semester.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
P.s. I'm against the mandatory attendance rule anyway. If a student can clear an exam without attending classes, it simply means he/she has attained the necessary standard of expertise in that subject. No reason why that can't be allowed. The idea is to make the exam of a high standard based on practical applications and class discussions, rather than rote memorization and regurgitation.
Also, it seems some people cannot understand that rankings like NIRF do not just look at placement but also faculty quality. Yes, NIRF was fed wrong data but the methodology is still sound (unlike India Today). Furthermore if you look at QS rankings they count citations, which are more influential than just publications. And Times ranking has 3 criteria: teaching quality + research output + citations. So something needs to be done in the future.
www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2018/law-legal-studies
www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/subject-ranking/law#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
For international ratings they do questionnaires and surveys among other academics. So students don't rate the teaching but academicians from other universities do, e.g. Harvard and Yale profs rate Stanford and Columbia and vice versa.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first