Yes, it has. Proof below:

mpp.nls.ac.in

nlsenlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/CEERA-Brochure-pdf.pdf

twitter.com/HRDMinistry/status/981142565729611782

www.nls.ac.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1218:ded-admission-2017-18&catid=2:new

www.nls.ac.in/resources/year2017/dedadmnnotif2017.pdf

www.nls.ac.in/resources/year2017/dedbrochure2017.pdf

law.yale.edu/studying-law-yale/degree-programs/graduate-programs/jsd-program/jsd-candidate-profiles/raeesa-vakil

www.lawctopus.com/vice-chancellor-at-national-law-school-of-india-university-bengaluru/

www.jgls.edu.in/rav-pratap-singh/

Logo is different. They are calling it Bengaluru on their brochures and website, the city has been renamed and that's all that matters. The logo has Bangalore because NLSIU was established when the city was still called that (unlike MNLU Mumbai or NUJS Kolkata). But if that is your yardstick then GLC should be called GLC Bombay, as it was established before the name change. I can't understand why NLSIU has to get this special treatment from you.

Kian - you can just say the law school, people will understand:-)

It is still called IIT Madras, not IIT Chennai.

Don't know why people are obsessed about attendance. If people can study without sitting in classes and use their time more purposefully, then more power to them. This does not reek of entitlement. No detentions on the other hand is ridiculous, and will lead to the equivalent of the CBSE idiots who score 100% because of grade inflation.

Because people don't (sit and study and use their time wisely) at 17/18 when they are away from home for the first time.

Also, if they wish to then IGNOU exists for that reason. By all measures use it. However, if you wish to use the name of any prestigious institution, then you must meet its bare requirements (which as of now is that you miss every 4th class in any subject). Almost all institutions have some such requirement the world over.

The other alternative which is to do away with the attendance requirement, but make the exams quality ones is also there. If you ask me questions that I can answer even without having attended your classes, then that speaks volumes about your ability as a teacher. The problem is that few teachers would agree to spend that much time on framing quality application based questions on the basis of class discussions, which is unfortunate.

Does this mean you fudge attendance for those who don't attend? Because given the BCI mandate of 70%, how else do they even get to sit for your exams to fail? If you do, that's not a very good example to set as a teacher, right?

Yes, I do.

Allowing adults to make a choice isn't a great example to set?

The problem with the NLUs, the administrations and the students is that each is set on infantalizing and on being infantalized. Hence we have cases of admins being paternalistic and also cases where students fail to take responsibility for their acts.

So instead of trying to change a set of problematic rules, you teach them that it's alright to break rules and essentially commit forgery when the outcome suits you. That's not treating students like adults, that's teaching them lack of respect for any rule the moment their interest gets affected by it.

What you fail to realise is that as legal academic and activist, I find that there are things far more problematic in the world worth my time than the attendance policy of one institute. I chose to concentrate on fighting them and provide my students space to think about them.

Also, I don't think having to attend 3 out of 4 classes is a problem. I chose to disregard it on a personal basis but don't feel it a colleague wishes to enforce it then he or she is doing any disservice to the cause of education.

What I am basically saying is - get over the attendance issue. It is a very first world problem which you can negotiate out of with some Profs and have to bear with others. In any case, get over it. The world of Law has far more worthy causes.

What I'm saying on the other hand is you don't get to pick and choose which law to follow and which not to. Following a law when it's convenient to follow does not require conviction, everyone will do it anyway. If you don't like a law, by all means protest actively to change it and bring reforms. But by simply showing them by example that laws can be broken at will, I doubt you are doing them any long-term favour. Extending your logic, if a student feels, rightly enough, that exams should be open book instead of mugging useless sections up, he should feel free to cheat in a closed book exam so long as he isn't getting caught, because as an adult that's his choice. If it is your conviction that the rule or law is bad, then disobey it and take up responsibility for it, don't try to sneak through. Tell the university that in your opinion as a teacher, a student getting actual 10% attendance in your class must also be allowed to sit for the exam. You are applying morality selectively and trying to assume the moral high ground for that.
Students should have better role models than that.

And what I am saying is that every (law) student needs to know when to fight something as a matter of strategy and when one shouldn't.

If you disagree, do that by all means. If you think someone needs to fight the attendance requirements, go ahead - fight. But that is a fight you chose, not me. That has to be your fight, not mine.

On a separate plane, my institution knows I don't stop students from writing my exam on grounds of attendance. They let me do it for what I bring in terms of competence in the classroom, and what I bring in terms of my research and writing. I don't fight on an institutional level, as I have stated previously, because I don't think this needs to be an institutional policy.

You are saying contradictory things. If you mark students present despite them not being so, then on pen and paper, that student is fulfilling the attendance requirements. So the institution need not be actually aware of how many students are giving your exam despite not having requisite attendance. The issue is also not about whether or not to fight the attendance requirements. The issue is about you actively indulging in what can only be termed as forgery in a more acceptable and less dangerous form and then coupling it with a sense of entitlement evident from references to your scholarship, activism and academic ability. You are not only therefore teaching your students to break rules everytime it suits them, but also expecting that to be appreciated and as stated in your first comment, taking active pride in it for exhibiting moral bankruptcy. You sidestepped the analogy of a student following in your footsteps and cheating in a close book exam. How do you expect to have the moral ground of criticizing that student given what you are showing them as acceptable? You want to argue strategy, by all means go ahead. Just don't make it equivalent to morality or respect for rule of law.

Which astrologer do you guys consult? Need his help to figure out my firm's future and my future. Please don't be so possessive about him/her. Bahut Dua milegi

If Sudhir comes in, Rahul's influence will be on the wane.

Rahul doesn't have any influence now