NLSIU Bangalore’s Student Bar Association (SBA) has made a strong statement against the tuition fees hike of at least Rs 47,000 that had been quietly rolled out by the administration and appealed for help from alums to raise this at the next Executive Council (EC) meeting.
We had exclusively reported the fee hike a week ago, and the SBA said that while it understood the “legitimate concerns” behind the hike and the need to ensure an increase in faculty salaries, under the 7th Pay Commission, it would not be appropriate to unilaterally increase the fees and other expenses of students, without consultation with the student body.
It also criticised how the fee hike had been “discreetly put up” on a corner of the university’s website, rather than circulated in a notification by email.
Furthermore, the hike would come “at the cost of the financial stability of the families of the students. The parents of many students save throughout the year in order to ensure that they are able to pay their children’s fees. Thus, not only does this sudden and drastic increase of fee adversely affect the financial situation of the students, it obviously has an exaggerated impact on those in an already financially vulnerable position”.
The hike was announced at very short notice, which created the risk of students not being able to raise sufficient further loans to meet the unexpected additional costs, said the SBA.
The increase in tuition fees was “antithetical to the very purpose” of NLSIU, and would “obviously disproportionately affect students from socially vulnerable groups including students from scheduled castes/tribes who more than often come from economically disadvantaged sections of society”.
Alternative options should be explored, such as the “long-demanded nationalization as well as grant of Institute of National Importance (INI) status to NLSIU – we believe it is possible for students and the administration to collectively seek other such methods”, or, only making the fee hike applicable for incoming students and not for current students who may be left only with the choice of paying the higher fee - which could be unrealistic for some - or “dropping out of college”.
Update 15:22: The NLU Odisha student body association has expressed solidarity with NLSIU’s council (see full statement on Facebook):
We stand in solidarity with the students of NLSIU against the disproportionate fee hike imposed by the administration. National Law Univerisities need to take into account the economic hardships as well as the burden of education loans thrust upon the students before sanctioning any such hike. Therefore we strongly condemn the decsion made by the administration of NLSIU, Bangalore.
Update 3 July 2019: NUJS Kolkata’s student council has also supported the NLS SBA in an statement.
Full SBA statement:
Dear all, The annual fees for the B.A. L.LB. (Hons.), LLM and the MPP programs at NLSIU was recently increased by between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 60,000 for incumbent students, an increase of more than 25% of the existing fees. This was done without consulting the students, who were also not given any advance notice in order to prepare for such a hike. The Student Bar Association, NLSIU strongly condemns the sudden and drastic fee hike.
The 57th finance committee had, in its meeting on 5 August 2017, observed that the income of NLSIU from all sources had become stagnant. This is a grave concern and can potentially impact NLSIU’s financial as well as administrative autonomy. Due to this, the committee recommended an increase of students’ fee by Rs.20000 per annum. Further, former Chairperson, UG Council had recommended an increase of fees by 25% to implement the 7 th Pay Commission. Despite the decision to increase the fees being taken almost 2 years ago, the students only got to know of the hike through a fees notification dated May 5, 2019, which was discreetly put up on the college’s website, and whose existence the students discovered only much later. It is worth considering that in the past the college’s Finance Officer used to circulate the annual fees notifications on the mail.
It is important to note that even though the aim of the fee hike is to implement the 7 th Pay Commission, the hike is not made to only the tuition fee as would be appropriate, but rather to the overall fee under various heads without providing the rationale behind increasing the fees under these – such as Internet costs (which are already very high for the quality of service offered). Further, the old fees structure already had a provision for a 12% yearly increase to account for inflation. Therefore the fees hike under the different heads is unexplained, unforeseeable and has been implemented without adequate notice.
However necessary and precise these aims may be, they cannot be achieved at the cost of the financial stability of the families of the students. The parents of many students save throughout the year in order to ensure that they are able to pay their children’s fees. Thus, not only does this sudden and drastic increase of fee adversely affect the financial situation of the students, it obviously has an exaggerated impact on those in an already financially vulnerable position.
It is also important to recognize the adverse impact of this fee hike on the students who have either received scholarships or taken student loans to finance their studies. Therefore, not only will this fee hike result in additional unforeseeable financial burden on these students, the expeditious nature of the hike will potentially prevent the affected students from exploring alternative means of paying the fees, thus jeopardizing their education in the premier legal education institution of India.
It is important to recognize the compound effect of the fee hike on the students hailing from socially disadvantaged groups as well. The fee hike will obviously disproportionately affect students from socially vulnerable groups including students from scheduled castes/tribes who more than often come from economically disadvantaged sections of society. Given that NLSIU is a public institution created in furtherance of promotion of legal education, such a fee hike is antithetical to the very purpose of establishing this institution and has an adverse impact on the student body as well as the very spirit of inclusivity which permeates throughout the NLSIU fraternity.
Lastly, we would like to implore and urge the administration to explore non-detrimental ways and methods to cater to the needs of the institution. One of these is the long-demanded nationalization as well as grant of Institute of National Importance (INI) status to NLSIU – we believe it is possible for students and the administration to collectively seek other such methods.
However, we do understand the legitimate concerns of the administration that have led to this fee hike. If these concerns cannot be addressed through any other means, then we would like to propose an alternative where the revised fee structure is prospectively applicable only for the incoming students, and not for the current students. This will potentially alleviate the situation for the lot of current students who are only left with choosing between paying the increased fee, or dropping out of college – neither of which may be desirable, acceptable or realistic choices for a many of the students at NLSIU.
We will be making a representation regarding this to the Executive Council during their meeting on the 6th of July, and would greatly appreciate any help we can get in dealing with this issue from alumni, members of the legal fraternity or any other person. We look forward to your support in ensuring that NLSIU continues to be a representative and inclusive institution, and ensuring that no student seeking legal education is deprived of the same, either before or during their course, on account of fee hike.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
And BTW the Karnataka govt will ask for domicile quota if you ask them for money.
1. Fee hike was inevitable, if 7th Pay Commission was to be extended to the staff. SBA has no backbone to actually question this. For the sake of 20 odd permanent faculty, the fee of the entire college is being raised. But no, SBA can't actually ask "why is a non-Central Institution adopting 7th CPC scales, and then saying, because its adopting 7th CPC scales, fees need to hiked". This is absurdity at its worst. Even state governments that have agreed to have parity with 7th CPC (eg. Himachal Pradesh), did so only after it showed a revenue-neutral case for it. If SBA is actually being serious, it should raise this issue.
2. Unjustifiable parts of the hike - (a) applying it to existing students - this has never been done in Law School history, it was always prospective for new students; are the existing faculty so desperate for that hike?; (b) absurd components like "electricity fee" and "internet fee" - reality is that the internet infra on campus continues to be terrible (has been in all my years here) and most people have reconciled themselves with relying on data plans.
3. Marginalised sections - what a laugh/fig leaf. Everyone knows that if you are actually from a marginalised background (eg. Scheduled Tribe student from North East, IDIA scholars etc), college scholarships are given for the full amount, even if maybe it takes some time to get sanctioned. But they never make you pay anything, it just shows as dues for accounting purposing before it's set off. For those from relatively less marginalised backgrounds but still needing financial assistance, education loans from PSBs continue to be available (SBI, Corp Bank etc) - yeah it might require some red tape at the bank, but are you so entitled that it has to be delivered to your hostel room? What planet or country do you think you're living in? Yes, being financially insecure is no cakewalk, but claiming that the procedure for getting your loan is arduous is just vulgar - think about those who don't even have that in other colleges. Never has the college imposed any penalties for late fees in cases where loan/scholarship disbursal was delayed.
So yes, the reality is complex. Venkata Rao hasn't turned anyone away because of financial insecurity. He's extended every accommodation for scholarships and late fees. Yet, he also panders to every single constituency, like the faculty in this case shamelessly giving themselves a hike in line with 7th CPC. Pay hikes should follow a good revenue stream, rather than be given first and then try milking existing revenue streams. And Venkata Rao is (partly) to blame in part for the absolutely shambolic internet infrastructure on campus. My seniors across batches have fought for it, and nothing got done then and nothing gets done now. He should have kicked out the IT support staff a long time ago. So this blowback against him for this (to this extent), is perfectly justified.
PS: this Sudhir fever dream is getting out of hand. He is by no means a certainty and faces an uphill battle. Maybe he gets picked, but the other 2 are certainly lobbying around the clock - and entrenched faculty on EC are going to put up a fight.
This protest should be about the reckless abandon with which a faculty committee headed by a professor recommended that the faculty give themselves a raise. And then say, "because we've given ourself this raise, we need to hike fees. Oh and because we need this raise immediately, hike fees for BOTH current students and incoming students". This is the problem. The absurd heads (electricity and internet) under which the fees are proposed to be levied, with no accountability on delivery of reliable services - that's the problem.
PS: good thing if you're actually helping kids come up with deposits and fees, as long as its not some lame virtue signalling. Having said that, Law School still commits that every person will be given an education regardless of financial status (fee waiver for most deserving, facilitating loans for others who need them). This is a wonderful achievement. Of course it might not be very convenient, there might be delays etc. They can be improved, but don't deny this with some tangential anecdotal cases (that don't even have to do with Law School). A prominent IDAI scholar (featured even in international media) is my friend. She/he has never had to pay a rupee to law school. Fees show up as dues, but by the end of the term they are set off against the scholarship money that is sanctioned.
So yeah, @SBA get real. Call out the real problem, and stop posturing.
1. Let the new fee apply only to incoming students. In 2-3 years, coffers will fill up so that 7CPC can be implemented fully.
2. Or alternatively, don't complain about fee hike.
My problem is with the SBA, not the salary hike per se (although the role of faculty in deciding their own pay is ethically dubious). The SBA is trying to have its cake, and eat it as well. Their statement says "we agree with 7CPC but not with the fee hike". Pray do tell, how else will you pay for it? Fundraising, endowments, grants etc take time. So the only way to avoid an immediate fee hike, is to have a gradual increase in faculty salaries in line with increased and broader revenue streams that can be leveraged over time. But no, they want to get paid all at once. What entitlement.
The last 5 years has seen an increasing number of students from tier 2 and 3 cities to join college. NLSIU was finally starting to be an institution where people from various different socio-economic backgrounds to get a good legal education. Unfortunately, due to the fee hike, the future might jeopardize this transformation.
#knowyourprivilege.
If people in the core of this movement would like to reach out, please do contact us via the tips link on the top left of the page.
Many thanks
Kian
1) Demand 1: Should new NLUs also get this tag? And what about Maharashtra and MP, which have more than one NLU?
2) Demand 2: Why not demand no domicile quota at all, like IIT and IIM?
3) Why not add demands for an All India Judicial Service and Legal Sector Liberalisation?
I would assume that's probably also the reason that the NLS SBA didn't raise the entire movement right now in its petition: it'd be hard enough to get the administration behind lobbying for just NLS ILU status. To make it something contingent on every NLU getting the status (or the wider movement, which still seems in its infancy), is likely to complicate and delay the issues even more...
1. Like how NLS mobilised alummi against the proposed domicle status, it along with all NLU's should get alumni support,hold backdoor negotiations etc.
2. Make submissions to the HRD Ministry over the Draft National Education Policy
3. Use social media to showcase the sub-par conditions of physical infrastrcture and any other problems if present
4. Stand in protest on campus , co-ordinated with all NLU's
5. Get media coverage to higlight the various problems
1. NLSIU: Not interested. Would prefer to take up NLSIU's concerns separately through Prof Sudhir and alumni.
2. NLUD: Not interested.
3. NALSAR: Not interested.
4. NUJS: Interested.
5. NLUJ: Not interested.
6. NLIU: Interested.
7. HNLU: Interested.
8. GNLU: Cannot participate because of disciplinary reasons.
9. RGNUL: Interested.
10. RMLNLU: Interested.
On the other hand, the supposedly lower ranked NLUs have a greater incentive. Remember that is was a DSNLU Vizag student who drafted the NLU Nationalisation Bill when Prof Sugato Bose was an MP.
Thus, each NLU student body has to fend for itself and lobby separately.
www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/jun/08/government-okays-eminence-status-for-30-educational-institutes-1987505.html
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first