The Supreme Court last Friday asked some national law universities to give their suggestions on a permanent body to conduct the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and to look into the misuse of the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota in NLU admissions.
The court also asked the government whether NLUs could be considered Institutes of National Importance (INIs), with a view to keep them free from domicile reservations in admissions.
Justices SA Bobde and Nageswara Rao raised these issues while hearing advocates on record Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Liz Mathew for Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access (IDIA) founding trustee Shamnad Basheer, who had moved the Supreme Court in August 2015 for a permanent body to conduct the CLAT.
AOR Mathew told us: “Issuing notice to the NLUs for a permanent CLAT body, the Supreme Court has widened this to ask the additional solicitor general whether NLUs are Institutes of National Importance. [The judge said on his own] we should also consider whether NLUs have to have any regional reservations.”
“With respect to NRI quotas being misused [the bench said that] the NRI quota should only be what was said in [the case of PA Inamdar]. Right now it is only a recommendation letter from any NRI person which will get you a seat so its not a genuine [quota] if NRIs are coming under that,” she added.
Mathew said that the court was inclined to issue notice for the permanent body only to CLAT 2015 convenor RMLNLU Lucknow but on the petitioners urging the court to issue notice to convenors for the next three years as well, the court then also included RGNUL Patiala, CNLU Patna and Nuals Kochi.
The terrible CLATs
Basheer filed an affidavit, in addition to his original 2015 petition, to highlight the newest problems with the organisation of the CLAT, after the CLAT 2017 that had been conducted by CNLU Patna.
The 2015 CLAT perhaps ranks as a historical low point, but Basheer pointed out how the question paper for the exam was yet again full of errors, how there had been a non functioning helpline number set up by the convenor, opacity in seat allotment, illegalities in allotment of special category seats, improper award of the CLAT tender and finally a flood of writs again filed across the country to add to the long standing trend of several writs challenging each edition of the CLAT.
BCI CLAT 2019: Uh, hell no?
Also replying to the BCI’s affidavit to the court that had suggested that it should solely be responsible for conducting the CLAT, Basheer filed a rejoinder stating:
The requirement to consult with Universities cannot be bypassed through a legal education committee, no matter how eminent the respective members of the committee are. Further, the legal education committee comprises only of some academics representing 3-4 Universities at best, who can hardly substitute for a pan India consultation with “Universities” as required by the statute. It bears noting that a significant number of members of the legal education committee are not academicians or representatives of any University.
In any case, the Legal Education Committee [within the BCI] established under the [Advocates Act 1961] has not been entrusted with the power to regulate entry and admission into law universities in India. In such a case, the composition of the committee is not germane to deciding the matter at hand, i.e. finding a constitutionally and legally compliant way to institutionalize CLAT in order to make for an efficient, competent and transparent process for regulating entry and admission into the various NLUs.
In this rejoinder he also highlighted in detail the BCI’s blatantly dismal track record, full of “incompetence and unprofessionalism” in conducting the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and stated:
Given the past conduct of the Bar Exam, it would be sheer injustice to entrust it with the conduct of CLAT, a far more challenging exam that requires the highest degree of competence and professionalism in terms of setting rigorous analytical questions on logical reasoning, maths, legal aptitude and the like.
He pointed out that the crucially time-sensitive CLAT cannot afford the kind of delays the BCI has been making with the AIBE, which we have reported on extensively over the years.
He noted that this track record suggested the BCI’s involvement would be “catastrophic” for the academic cycles at 18 NLUs.
Basheer argued in the rejoinder:
The Petitioner submits that the PIL was filed to redress a highly inequitable and unjust state of affairs, where students were subjected to a rotational CLAT conduct system by participating NLU’s, replete with arbitrariness and incompetence: a state of affairs that impacted their scores, admissions and very futures.
To now transfer the conduct of CLAT to an even more egregiously negligent, callous, unprofessional, opaque and corrupt body would be akin to forcing thousands of hapless students to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
How can the VC of one law school unilaterally decide to keep itself out of the purview of CLAT (shortcomings of CLAT notwithstanding). Although, the majority will argue (as they should) that the very fact that such a PIL has been filed means that CLAT is not a perfect exam, and they would like to maintain their own competent admission criteria. I wish to put forth:
1. Is not true that having complete autonomy over the conduct of the examination and the results, theoretically permit the University to selectively bias or choose a select students backed by vested interests and disguise them in the incoming batch of students, who have qualified on the basis of merit. Of course, this would presume the exertion of pressure and force on the administration of NLU-Delhi, and we all know that NLU-Delhi can resist that kind of favour and pressure.
2. Flowing from pt (1) above, is not true or not true that the number of students whose parents are HC/SC and Delhi trial court judges or senior advocates are much more in proportion to the rest of the batch than any other national law school. I am not implying any intention to these wards, but merely comparing absolute numbers numbers.
3. NLU-Delhi students should themselves come to the realisation (as did the students of a certain law school in Shamirpet after a change in administration and the introduction of CLAT) that such a model in fact attacks meritocracy and scholarly aptitude. The scholastic achievements of the students of the law school in Shamirpet, before and after the introduction of CLAT are well documented and can be corroborated by the faculty and students at that law school circa 2010-2013.
4. NLU-Delhi has crystallised its position as a premier institution of legal studies, and should rely on that to attract the top ranks to come to Delhi, in case it chooses to join CLAT. Heck, I will put my neck out there and argue that some students may even give Salt Lake a miss to come to Dwarka.
Anyways, Ill be glad to hear of what you guys think, I just felt very weird that even all these years, NLU-Delhi has a separate exam, which puts pressure (academically and monetarily) on young school students. The whole purpose of CLAT was to avoid this plague. Of course, CLAT itself needs reformation and re-organisation which is the purpose of this PIL, but the reason behind the special treatment meted out to NLU-Delhi should raise eye-brows.
p.s. Just to make it clear, I'm against such opting out, given the inconvenience that it subjects scores of students to.
1. to provide students with a comparatively inexpensive access to a chance at entering one of these law schools, and
2. to reduce the chances of these law schools having 'back-door' entrants.
As such, though no law school outside the 7 initially impleaded in the matter were bound by the text of the decision, they were its spirit.
NLU-D for the longest time was the only one to remain on the outside. In doing so, it was in violation of the spirit of the decision and has set the wrong precedent for some of the others to follow.
The CLAT has many problems and need a re-vamp to improve both its substance and procedures. However, that shouldn't take away from the access question. Students should not have to pay exorbitant fees at multiple places to merely write an exam.
Conducting the AILET allows NLUD to generate significant revenue, and that's the prime motivation behind it. And with how much of a failure CLAT has been recently, everyone at NLUD is fairly happy that we conduct our own entrance (our current first year batch, for example, is fantastic).
PS - A lot of students already give Salt Lake a miss and come to Dwarka. The real question is how many would leave Shamirpet and Nagarbhavi.
If you read the order instituting CLAT, you'll realize that it only obligated the existing NLUs at that time to sign a MoU to have a common entrance. The order does not create prospective obligations on NLUs that came into existence after that. All newer NLUs have willfully joined the CLAT, and not because they had a legal obligation to.
So yeah, I'll reiterate - morally wrong (because students face the BT of paying twice), but legally correct.
Oh, for all principled warriors out here, what institutional reforms have you brought in that don't benefit you and are solely for the benefit of third parties?
And it's not about payment only. The fact that you think it is, is indicative of the privilege you are accustomed to. I have seen a student having to travel hundreds of km twice in a couple of weeks to try to appear for both the exams, with his parents having to sell their meagre assets to simply fund the journey. It's also an accessibility issue.
With regard to your last sentence, it would only have been valid had any other law school been doing something that was inconveniencing outsiders and not simply insiders. There too, NUJS students have recently taken the initiative to actually go out and fight on ground zero about the right of slum dwellers, something that had nothing to do with their own interests or even connected with law school. LI and MSM had covered it, I'm sure you have read it too. The purpose of bringing that up is not to say NLUD students don't do such activities, it was simply to counter your last point. And had NLSIU, NALSAR/NUJS been actually conducting a separate exam or something similar that affects outsiders as well as insiders (it affected you all too, or did you only choose to appear for AILET and not CLAT?) and students there were not trying to engage the admin regarding that, then you could have perhaps said this. As it stands now, just admit that you all chose to remain self-serving on this matter and not ruffle any administrative feather, plain and simple. It wouldn't be legally wrong, you know. Just morally. And clearly the law school with best faculty and research background is not being able to help you reach that moral high ground anytime soon. Justice rings a bell? Or is black letter law the only thing taught there?
These issues will be brought up again and again every time you rush forward to proclaim your superiority over others. Those who live in glass house etc. etc.
I was reiterating my newfound favorite phrase - "kuch bhi".
Obviously we can characterise the problem whatever way we want (accessibility is also an economic issue, and that's how I wanted to characterise it), but yeah, it's morally incorrect of NLUD to have it's own entrance. Agree.
Well, I really wouldn't draw parallels between rights of slum dwellers and the rights of students to education in one articulate law school, but I do see your larger point.
Honestly, the best way forward would be for the SC to make a very competent CLAT body, because that is one thing stopping our VC from signing an MoU. In the last few chats I've had with him, Ranbir Singh really cares about legal education and access now, and I'm sure he will act when everything clears up.
Despite this, the treatment meted out to you at a law firm depends largely on whether you are a national law kid or not.
Judging you on the basis of what is flawed of itself!
Alas!
Lord have mercy!
How difficult is it to get it right?
a) Modi has given very low priority to legal sector reforms, from appointment of judges to foreign law firms to reforming the BCI to legal education. Ravi Shankar Prasad has been one of the most lethargic and ineffective law ministers in history. Even if the SC itself gives an order to the government asking it to declare NLUs as INIs, they will drag their feet.
b) Some NLUs have already instituted a domicile quota. State governments will be reluctant to roll back the quota, at least before the 2019 elections. All the the top 4 NLUs are all in non-BJP states: Karnataka, Telengana, West Bengal, Delhi. It is true that the Harvard Professor-cum-MP introducing the NLU Bill in Parliament is from an opposition party (TMC), but remember that it is a private members bill without party support.
c) The BCI will pose obstacles.
The only possibility is that NLU students across India unite and go on an indefinite strike, demanding INI status and a joint meeting with the CJI and Ravi Shankar Prasad in Delhi. But this will never happen as NLU students lack the unity of the IIT community. Furthermore, the tier 1 NLUs have good placements and will be happy staying their bubble.
1) The government has declared 91 institutes at INIs. Now, let's look at the list of 91: 16 IITs + 29 NITs + 8 AIIMS + 6 IISER + 3 SPAs (School of Planning & Architecture) + JIPMER + various other institutes.
mhrd.gov.in/institutions-national-importance
2) IIMs got this status only recently, with the IIM Bill. Furthermore, the status has not been notified as yet and IIMs are not in the list of 91 yet (though it will happen soon).
www.ndtv.com/india-news/iims-will-be-institutes-of-national-importance-1652370
3) The correct model for the NLUs with be IIM rather than IIT or AIIMS or IISER, as these are scientific and technical institutes.
4) However, the big difference with IIMs is that they charge high fees and raise money through the private sector. So they do not need government support. They also have boards headed by industry people + alumni. This is how IIMs get good faculty. In the case of NLUs, only a small fraction of the fees of IIMs is charged. So if you want to be like an IIM be prepared to pay 5-6 lakhs a year as fees. Also, you must have the Zia Modys and Cyril Shroffs on the boards of law schools + alumni.
Sorry, but you can'y pay 1-2 lakhs a year and expect a world class law school, when IIMs charge 10 times as much and foreign law schools/business schools between 30 lakhs to a crore a year.
- In Maharashtra, only MNLU Mumbai should get INI status, not Auranagabad and Nagpur.
This has been Ranbir Singh's methodology from his NALSAR days to build institutional connections with those in power. Note that I am not alleging that he does this for himself (though it pays to know the right people), but for the institution. Hence, it is important for him to have his own entrance exam. He went out of NALSAR before the first CLAT batch came in.
Shamnad, and those around him involved in this petition, are well aware of this fact. They have been around the law school circuit long enough. Therefore, as a matter of strategy they chose not discomfort the arrangement. This ensures that the judges assigned to the matter do not walk in with a personal/associational bias against the petition.
I disagree with those above who have stated he should have included NLUD. As a lawyer, it is upon you to chose the most effective strategy in litigation. That is all they have done.
Matlab if you have no work then let's come and gossip on LI.
I mean, sure, bash us for what we do wrong (we're bit too pompous sometimes, all the chest thumping doesn't help), but ye to alag hi bakchodi hai. You've fudged information to make a perceptibly believable justification for Shamnad's actions. Wow.
NALSAR, NUJS and NLUD want to be at the same level as NLSIU but do not want the same status for the likes of lower NLUs.
Thus, the best solution is INI status for just 4 law schools: NLSIU, NALSAR, NUJS and NLUD.
Further Shamnad is playing safe and diplomatic game by excluding NLUD. He can revolt against NUJS but not against NLUD for sure.
NLUDelhi is genuinely everything a law school should be except for long brand and top placements. Brand is quite comparable with NALSAR and NUJS today and placements is weaker but not by much. On every other count it is where a candidate will want to go.
Plus theres AILET. It's better conducted, better question paper, fewer bloopers and less leaks. AND it does NOT require deposit before CLAT process. THAT MEANS PEOPLE WHO PREFER NLUD TO CLAT NLUS DO SO DESPITE THE ISSUE OF GETTING THEIR CLAT DEPOSIT BACK. AND THATS WHY NLUD PREFERENCE IS WAYYYY MORE THAN NUJS (3:1) AND SOMEWHAT MORE THAN NALSAR (3:2)
I think NUJS (and lesser extent NALSAR) need a reality check. Sure they can go on screaming about their law schools but deep down they know that NLUD is the future.
With regard to AILET v. CLAT, that's bound to happen. Had NLSIU, NALSAR or NUJS conducted their own entrance exams, they could have claimed that too (in fact, pre-CLAT, the standard of those papers was much higher than CLAT/AILET). However, when it happens at the cost of the greater good (read: hardship caused to thousands of students), it is simply not preferable.
I have worked with students from all of these law schools. Couldn't see any obvious difference in quality that merits your claim about NLUD's superiority. Inferiority neither, by the way. As for being the future, why don't we let time decide it? NLUD's test will begin once Ranvir Singh leaves. He can't be on that chair forever. And NUJS was in its golden age too under MP Singh after 10 years from its inception. Just like NLUD is now 10 years after its own (that too placement-wise it is still nowhere near other counterparts). In our VC-centric law school set-ups, one sub-standard guy can make or break an institution. NUJS student potential has survived a bad guy. Hope NLUD will, too. It is better that students from all of these places learn to work together, sharing their strength, instead of being in a measuring contest that people like you tend to instigate, God knows why! If anything, there is only one flaw that I have found apparent with people from NLUD in platforms like this; they cannot stop at saying good things about their own college, they have to compare it with others and say how bad and has-been the latter are. You did the same too. It almost seems like an institutionally-inherited inferiority complex! Why so, pal? You have got a great place, cherish it and enjoy it without having to do all this. Shouting you are the future does not do anything else other than take away from your present.
www.hindustantimes.com/education/from-2021-phd-a-must-for-university-teachers/story-gAS1LGqIXihSUuaIiTYIOL.html
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first