A short scrutiny of a rare Scholar – A combination of the “Bar, Bench and Academics”

NB: This is a guest post from a Law Student who wishes to keep his identity confidential.

Looking back it appears not a long-gone time when the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, reckoned his views on the mushrooming of law schools in the country. According to him, besides a few “islands of excellence”, law colleges in India were “a sea of institutionalized mediocrity.”

As is unfamiliar to none, the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, was conceptualized and brought into existence under the dynamic leadership of Professor Madhav Menon, on having received a missive from the then Chairman of BCI, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, requesting him to bring about a change in the system of legal education in the country. Since its inception, the law school has done exceedingly well for itself; in terms of both academics and alumni record. Further, a review of the recent Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) preferences of the high-scoring candidates indicates that NLSIU is still the top school of choice for prospective law students. To this date, there exists as much as 15 National Law Schools in India, in toto.

The National Law Schools, inter alia, have been highly acclaimed for its rich repository of some of the best brains of the country. Even otherwise, to begin with the lucrative placements at the end of the 5-year course, to the academic exposure, everything about a N-tag Law School has always been a constant buzz of attraction for the law students. Law schools of the non-national stature have also maintained a reputable position for themselves with similar contribution to the legal field; having given a few of the most polished minds of times. However, boiling down to the main point- there has always been an apparent higher footage, in the sense of choice/preference, for the National Law Schools over other Law Schools of the country.

Having said that, it is pertinent to draw the attention to those impulsive individuals, under whose intense leadership these Institutions are generally necessitated and maneuvered. They give voice to the curriculums and co-ordinate the system to exist and operate in such a way so as to benefit hundreds in the best manner possible. Luminaries from higher judiciary, dignitaries holding immense and enriching experience in academics, and scholars with astounding credentials are among the ones upholding the position to run these ‘islands of excellence’. At the outset, a reasonable standard of expectation dwells with these individuals for the betterment and maintenance of brilliancy in such Universities. Under such pools of expectations, lies the responsibility to uphold the status quo and look forward for a decent and apt projection of their credentials.

And here we arrive at the unfortunate part. As much as it is a matter of concern, it’s a matter of disgrace at the same decibel for all of us that one such eminent personality in the legal fraternity has failed us in this aspect. A person upholding the position of a Vice-Chancellor in one of the most reputed National Law University is seen to have taken the minimal interest in projecting the most appropriate of his credentials to the public. And what more; such a scene is conspicuously maintained in the official website of the University! The curriculum vitae which talks of the “Martial Status” of the Vice-Chancellor, instead of “Marital Status”, which claims of his position as the “standing council” for educational institutions and which revolves around his “unique combination of bar, bench and academics” is certainly not an appealing gesture to be appreciated by any graduate, or otherwise, for inspiration or reference.

However, this is not a point of debate challenging the originality or credentials of the Vice-Chancellor, or questioning the veracity of his academic excellence and experience. Instead, it should drill a reasonable doubt in our minds as to whether we should actually look up to such persons when it comes to preceding hundreds of students when they themselves take no heed in suitable projection and consort to such harum-scarum profiles! It is nothing but a conscious measure to highlight the fact that persons of such stature and eminence are expected to at least mete out to the acknowledged norms.

And now we head towards another heated debate of the year, i.e., the pandemonium caused by CLAT 2012, which, inter alia, concerns the involvement of the aforesaid luminary. This year saw the hue and commotion questioning the potentialities of the organizing University when it came to the preparation and management of one of the biggest entrance examinations of our country. Doubts arose as to the credibility of the University to indulge in a fair and prudent procedure of conducting an exam which was undertaken by more than twenty thousand aspirants. What appeared to be the case, prima facie, was that the CLAT committee failed to give the right instructions to the "expert committee" that the concerned Vice-Chancellor speaks of. Needless to say, the expert committee would not have committed this blunder had they been told that they were not supposed to be asking the non-essentials as per the prescribed syllabus. And then of course the inevitable; why was the "expert committee" not informed about the syllabus? And to this there can be only two possible reasonable explanations. Either it could be an oversight, or it could be intentional.

But then, shouldn’t there be safeguards put into place to avoid oversight, mistakes, or corruption? Evidently, these questions are relevant not only for this year's CLAT, but to all future CLATs which are going to be held. Unfortunately the answers all seem to be negative from the outcome. Prima facie the concerned University and the CLAT committee did not put into place any process that ensures a mistake-free, good quality question paper.

Under the blanket of such discussions, apropos the powers and limitations enshrined upon this dignitary and the manner and extent to which they are executed, settles the reiterated distrust for such a person. Like they say, a mistake committed by one person may not necessarily affect him, but in turn affects others either directly or indirectly associated with him. The write-up was just an attempted approach in bringing about the tiniest hinge of disbelieve on such a person who, apart from being derelict as regards his own recognitions, has also been conspicuously framed as a delinquent leader.

In the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. So why not as the future of tomorrow, we expect our present to be led and maneuvered by persons beyond any scope of doubt? In any case, isn’t that the way it is supposed to be? After all, this is what we are taught at our law schools- the case at hand is innocent unless proven beyond any scope of reasonable doubt!

RGNUL Hostel Rules: Reasonable or Authoritarian?

This post is never a comment on the RGNUL administration or the system prevailing there. After I wrote in Bar & Bench about some issues prevailing in RGNUL; one person was kind enough to send me a copy of the Hostel Rules.

The person has conveyed to me that though there are some unpleasant norms in these rules; all of them are not strictly followed. The same situation or may be even worse will probably be prevailing in other Universities. The attempt through this post is to open up a platform to generate a debate on larger issues involved.

RGNUL Hostel Rules

NUALS Vice-Chancellor Post - A request to the Chancellor before the bargain and horse trading begins!

National Institute for Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) was set up by the Bar Council of Kerala Trust in 2002. NIALS was under the supervision of Cochin University of Science and Technology. Later in 2005 by virtue of The National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) Act 27 of 2005, the National Institute for Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) merged with the NUALS and became an independent University. This in short is the history behind the establishment of what is currently known as NUALS.

Prof. K.N.C. Pillai was the first Director of NIALS and Prof. S. G. Bhat was the first Vice-Chancellor of NUALS. After, the retirement of Prof. Bhat, the post was kept vacant for more than a year. During this period, the current Vice-Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) N. K. Jayakumar, was serving as the Legislative Secretary in the Kerala Legislative Assembly on deputation from the University of Kerala, where he served as a Professor. Immediately after his retirement from the University of Kerala, he was appointed as the Vice- Chancellor of NUALS. It is often alleged by many that the post of Vice-Chancellor was kept vacant for a year to enable Dr. Jayakumar to assume Vice-Chancellorship.

When I joined NUALS in 2006, we were promised that the construction of permanent campus would be completed within a year and that the University will shift to the permanent campus by the next year. The permanent campus, however, became a reality the year I passed out.  Thanks to the redtapism and lacklustre administration I along with many others could not even study for a single day at the new campus. That the administration is insensitive to the needs of the students and growth of the University equally is a fact that I can vouch for from my experience at NUALS.

I recently learned from my juniors at law school that the scenario has improved a lot. The campus itself has made a lot of difference and Dr. Jayakumar played an instrumental role in setting up the campus. Campus placement has also improved drastically and lot of other fruitful events and activities are happening at present. I was really happy to learn all these developments.

The current Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Jayakumar is due to retire in December and the bargaining/horse trading for the post has already begun. In all circumstances, Dr. Jayakumar is unlikely to get an extension of the tenure except for the reason of ongoing campus construction; which is very minute.

There are three main contenders to the post; I am not mentioning any of the names over here.  

Recently Krishna Kumar, Professor of Education at Delhi University and a former Director of NCERT, wrote in “The Hindu” an excellent column on India not nurturing young talent in academics. He mentioned, “Someone rare enough to be independent of personal as well as intellectual lobbies is the first to be eliminated. In the semi-final act of short listing, those lacking support from the dominant lobbies get weeded out. Then, in the ultimate moment, hard bargaining takes place and the institution’s future gets sealed. If there is someone with an unusual background or achievement, you can depend on the selection committee to find a technical ground to reject him or her.”

As per Section 27 of the NUALS Act, the Chancellor appoints the Vice-Chancellor on the unanimous recommendation of the Search Committee appointed by the Chancellor. The Search Committee shall consist of a) One nominee of the Bar Council of Kerala, b) One nominee of the University Grants Commission and c) One nominee of the State Government. As per Section 27(3), In case the Search Committee is unable to recommend a name unanimously, the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from among a panel of three names submitted to him by the Committee within three months. Section 27 (4) stipulates that, In case, the Committee fails to make an unanimous recommendation or to submit a panel as in section  27(3), the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor among a panel of three names submitted  to him by a majority of members of the Search Committee.  These are the rules governing appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

Under the current political scenario, effectively, the Kerala Bar Council nominee and State Government nominee will have the final word. Prior to Amendment in 2008, the Search Committee consisted of a nominee of the Bar Council of India and not that of the Bar Council of Kerala. Also, it is a known fact that the Kerala Bar Council nominee and State Government nominee will be political appointments.

My request to the Chancellor of the University, Madame Justice Manjula Chellur is to instruct the Search Committee to adopt a transparent and fair process in the selection process. I would say that, even the vacancy for the post should be advertised and notified in all national dailies across India.

The more the people, more the options we have. We would not have to choose between few bad options. The Committee should also follow a fair and transparent process during all stages of the selection and they should have concrete reasons for suggestion a names/names. This should be included in a report and the same should be made available to public.

I would like to conclude by noting that, this incident is never an isolated event. This is what happens in each and every University and I would recommend everyone to read Krishna Kumar’s article in “The Hindu” for a critical analysis of the system.

I will be sending a Petition to the Chancellor about the need for a transparent process in the selection of the new Vice-Chancellor and anyone who wishes to sign the Petition  along with me; please let me know about the same. My mail id is raghulsudheesh@gmail.com or you can reach me on phone at +91 87221 53555.

Lordship says Courts should not legislate but my Lordship you legislated from the Bench!

Recently the Press Council of India Chairman and former Apex Court Judge, Justice Markandey Katju remarked that, “Shouldn't there be a restraint amongst judges? The Supreme Court has been playing a legislative role which is totally unwarranted. The Supreme Court should show restraint, many times the Supreme Court has taken over Parliament, Legislature and I gave a judgment that judges are not emperors that they can do whatever they like”. 

I fully agree with Justice Katju on these issues and also regarding the appointment of judges through Collegium system and I myself have been verycritical about this in the past.

In Aruna Shanbaug’s case, on May 7, 2011, Justice Katju delivered a landmark judgment legalizing passive euthanasia in India. Justice Katju in that case remarked, “We are laying down the law in this connection which will continue to be the law until Parliament makes a law on the subject”. In this case the Apex Court gave very detailed directions regarding the proceedings for removal of life supporting system. This is nothing but judicial legislation.

On October 21, 2010, in D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal where Justice Katju laid down the legal framework for recognizing a woman's rights in a live-in relationship, he mentioned, “In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence.” This is also another instance of judicial legislation done by Justice Katju. This case was also famous for another reason, as Justice Katju used Wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone and anytime) to discuss the meaning of the term “Common Law Marriage”.

In anothercase, Justice Katju directed the trial/High Courts to award the death sentence to the convicts in "honour killings" cases, treating them in the ‘rarest of rarest’ category. Further in a case regarding fake encounters, Justice Katju remarked, “Cases where a fake encounter is proved against policemen in a trial, they must be given death sentence, treating it as the rarest of rare cases". The Criminal Procedure Code mandates that a judgment shall state ''the reasons for the sentence awarded and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence''. Interpreting the scope of the term “special reasons” in the Bachan Singh case, the Court mandated that death sentence shall be awarded only in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. This is a judicial amendment of the Code and Justice Katju has been only adding to this by classify cases in the ‘rarest of rare’ category.

In 2009, a two judge Bench comprising Justice Katju and Justice A.K. Ganguly made a reference to a five judge Bench  differing with the order passed in 2006 by a two-judge Bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat regarding guidelines on student union elections in colleges and universities and a subsequent order to control the ragging menace. The Bench said, “the initial order directing the implementation of the report of the J.M. Lyngdoh Committee was wholesome and the court also directed the manner of implementation. The Bench felt that the proper course should have been to send the recommendations to the Parliament to make a law or to the Universities concerned so that they could take a decision on implementation.” It was this sane Judge who later created exhaustive guidelines legalizing passive euthanasia.

All these show the inconsistency of Justice Katju as a Judge and as a person. Now that he has retired from the Apex Court, he can criticize the Court for judicial legislation and say that 90% of Indians are fools! I am reminded of Francis Bacon’s words, “much-talking Judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal”.

Call for Research Assistants at H. R. Khanna Law Research Foundation

H. R. Khanna Law Research Foundation, is a think tank organization based in New Delhi. Eminent Supreme Court lawyer, P. George Giri is the Honorary Chairman of the foundation. 

The foundation invites applications from law students for the post of 'Research Assistant'. Any law student in India is eligible to apply. Selected candidates will have to work with the foundation for a minimum period of three months and the work can be done online. Physical presence is not needed. Selected candidates will be asked to research on varied topics of law.

An ideal candidate should possess the following qualities:

1. Should be a quick learner.
2. Should be really ambitious and creative. 
3. Should be able to work under tight circumstances to meet deadlines.
4. Should be able to work with team and self-directed.
5. Should be a problem solver. 

Interested candidates may submit their resumes and a letter of interest to <hrkhanna.foundation@gmail.com> on or before August 20, 2012. Selected candidates will be intimated about the same. 

All 'Research Assistants' would be provided with certificates signed by the Honorary Chairman, P. George Giri. 

Stripped Law would recommend all law students to avail this opening as this can definitely lend an extra edge to your resume.