Are National Law Schools in India a failure?

Prof. Leelakrishnan was heading the panel conducting course viva for the final year students of NUALS. He was very friendly and was asking me during the viva about my law school life and future plans. Casually I mentioned few things and in between I also said, I had worked for IDIA and explained to him about what IDIA was all about. Then he asked me a question, Have National Law Schools in India served their purpose? I answered it ‘No’. This is the inspiration behind writing this piece.


Section 4 of the National Law School of India Act, 1986 states the object of establishing the institute as follows:

"The Objects of the School shall be to advance and disseminate learning and knowledge of law and legal processes and their role in national development, to develop in the student and research scholar a sense of responsibility to serve society in the field of law by developing skills in regard to advocacy, legal services, legislation, law reforms and the like, to organise lectures, seminars, symposia and conferences to promote legal knowledge and to make law and legal processes efficient instruments of social development, to hold examinations and confer degrees and other academic distinctions and to do all such things as are incidental, necessary or conducive to the attainment of all or any of the objects of the School."


The following objectives need to be emphasised:


1. To advance and disseminate learning and knowledge of law and legal processes and their role in national development.

2. To develop in the student and research scholar a sense of responsibility to serve society in the field of law by developing skills in regard to advocacy, legal services, legislation, law reforms and the like.

3. To organise lectures, seminars, symposia and conferences to promote legal knowledge and to make law and legal processes efficient instruments of social development.

Whether the National Law Schools established in India have been able to serve the purposes highlighted above is worth contemplating at this juncture. How many National Law Schools or its graduates have become catalysts in national development? Have these law schools been able to instil in students the sense of responsibility to serve society as has been envisaged in the objects? Is there any national law school which has consistently endeavoured to make legal process an efficient instrument of social development? There are exceptions but the numbers are a staggering low considering the years that passed by.

Every top law school boasts of the annual placements and tie ups with foreign universities. But object of social purpose which was a driving force behind the birth of these law schools have long disappeared into the oblivion. The psyche of even a first semester student is to secure a corporate internship and participate in reputed moot court competitions. The mindset of a law student to diversify and lengthen one's curriculum vitae with the object of making to a law firm or a corporate company at the end of five years is the norm in a national law school.

The students alone cannot be held responsible for this. The system warrants the same. Vice- Chancellors and the administrative bodies are the brand ambassadors of these law schools at the law firms and corporate companies. Thus, it is not surprising that there is a mass flow of these graduates to corporate sectors.

The already slender percentage of students taking up law practice is thinning further and this is not a welcome trend. The Bar as well as the Bench have also contributed to this phenomenon. The meagre amount that a young law graduate gets while practising with a lawyer naturally drives him to better avenues. The Judiciary has failed to imbibe into itself the best of the national law school graduates. Poor human resource management in the judiciary has been a reason for the long pendency of cases. Had there been a direct recruitment of national law school graduates into the bench there would have been changes towards positive.

A single entity cannot be blamed for the failure of the national law schools. Everyone has contributed their bit. So a comprehensive plan is needed to reform the legal education mechanism in India. Some solid suggestions on this regard would be:

•  National judicial academy and other state judicial academies should recruit from national law schools directly to take the best of these law schools directly into the judiciary.
•  Even though the new generation law schools have attracted more students to law field, most of the law graduates end up choosing jobs in corporate sectors and law firms as they are more lucrative. The problem is that opting for practicing in a court does not fetch money. So, like every other profession, a method should be evolved so as to pay a fixed salary to practicing lawyers too so that it becomes a preferable field. Due to financial constraints, even those law graduates interested in social work prefer corporate sector solely due to the fact that the former is less lucrative.
• Senior law students should be allowed to appear in Courts and argue cases.

I do very well acknowledge the fact that these suggestions are not comprehensive and my attempt here is only to start a good debate and invite more suggestions on this regard. I would highly appreciate any kind of constructive criticism on this regard. Please do post your comments so that we can come up with more meaningful and comprehensive suggestions. Views expressed in this write up are purely personal.

In the second part of this write up, i will be including various peoples opinion on this and also all the suggestions will be compiled.

History of Legal Education in India: Guest Post by Adv. Devadas T.M., LL.M. III Semester, NUALS

STRIPPED LAW thanks Mr Devadas T.M. for sending his guest post. Devadas T.M. is a 2nd year student of LL.M. at NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, Cochin. The following is the text of Mr.Devadas's post.

History of legal education in a democratic society cannot be over emphasised. Knowledge of law increases one understands of public affairs. Concept of ‘Dharma’ in Vedic period also includes dispensation of justice by King who acquired specific legal knowledge. There was a time in the human evolution when law was a part of ethics and religion, of morals and values, of philosophy and consciousness. Ancient civilization particularly that of India, conceived a legal order based on the compendious Sanskrit expression “Dharma”. The role of ethics and philosophy in explaining social problems and giving directions for social action is not adequately appreciated today. However, in making and interpreting law, no society can afford to ignore Ethics. One can say that law is an applied ethics. No civilised society can be structured without developing its moral fibre and consciousness either through law, religion, education or other instruments of social control. The gurushishya parampara has existed ever since Vedic era making education an integral part of human development. It is education which ultimately results in shaping or transforming the whole society in to human civilization. Spiritually, it is believed that the life on the earth is regulated by the laws of the Lord or the Divinity. It is 'rule of law', that draws the essential difference between human society and animal world. It is the legal education that plays a pompous role in promoting social justice. Education or awareness of laws, characterize the lawyers as 'Social engineers'.

A study of history reveals that in modern times shows that it is intellectuals alone who can give leadership to the nations. We can find that it was the lawyers who gave leadership to most nations. For example, during the great American Revolution of 1776, most of the American leaders were lawyers e.g. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison etc. In the great French Revolution of 1789, about two-thirds of the members of the French National Assembly were lawyers, e.g. Robespierre, Danton etc. In the American Civil War of 1861-65, the American President who led the nation to victory over slavery was a lawyer-Abraham Lincoln. In the Russian Revolution of 1917, the leader of Russia was Lenin who was a lawyer. In our own independence Struggle, most of the leaders during that period were lawyers e.g. Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, CR Dass, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Rajaji etc. The lawyers who gave leadership to the nations and not doctors or engineers or teachers or other professionals because of the reason those lawyers are intimately connected to the Society. Doctors deals with medical problems, engineers deals with technical problems, teachers deals with academic matters etc, but it is lawyers who deals with the entire society.

In modern India legal education came in to existence in 1885. Numerous committees were foamed to consider and propose reforms in legal education. Constitution of India basically laid down the duty of imparting legal education. Advocates’ Act, 1961 which brought uniformity in legal system. In the changed scenario the additional roles envisaged are that of policy planner, business advisor, negotiator of any interested groups etc. In the Era of Globalisation legal system in India include catering the needs of new brand consumers or clients namely foreign companies, collaborators etc. Strengthening our legal education system is need to face the new challenges. Imparting of legal education has always been considered as one to the noblest profession. Legal education which is part of general education cannot be viewed in isolation. Today, legal education derives its impetus from the economic, social and economic and political set up of the society.

Significance of Legal Education

'Law is the cement of society and an essential medium of change'. The significance of legal education in a democratic society cannot be over-emphasized. Knowledge of law increases one understands of public affairs. Its study promotes accuracy of the expression, facility in arguments and skill in interpreting the written words, as well as some understanding of social values. It is pivotal duty of everyone to know the law. Ignorance of law is not innocence but a sin which cannot be excused. Thus, legal education is imperative not only to produce good lawyers but also to create cultured law abiding citizens, who are inculcated with concepts of human values and human rights.  We must have a legal education which can fulfil the need of the society and country as well. We are no longer laissez-faire but a welfare State and in welfare society law plays a very important role in every affair of human being. Law serves as an important instrument to achieve socio-economic development[i]. Today law is not viewed merely as an instrument of social control but also an instrument of social change. The aim of legal education should be not only to produce good lawyers but also create cultured, law abiding citizens who are inculcated with concepts of human values and human rights who can serve humanity in various capacities such as, administrators, law teachers, jurists, judges, and industrial entrepreneurs etc. As far as creation of good advocates and solicitors is concerned, the legal education should aim at equipping them with legal techniques and professional skills. An Advocate must be tolerant, must listen patiently other man’s point of view and not hazard opinions without some basis. He should be rational, secular keeper, willing to work hard, competent to communicate having good expression, must have critical understanding of human institutions and values. Legal profession is objectively in the position of producing Statesmen. This is due to two reasons

(1) Lawyers belong to an independent profession. They are not subordinate to the government or to anyone else.

(2) They are directly in contact with society in its entirety as they have to deal with all kinds of problems of people from all sections of society, unlike say, doctors who are confined to technical problems. Hence lawyers are the people who are most conversant with the problems of society as a whole.

 A well administered and socially relevant legal education is a sine qua non for a proper dispensation of justice. Giving legal education a human face would create cultured law abiding citizens who are able to serve as professionals and not merely as business men.

The quality and standard of legal education acquired at the law school is reflected through the standard of Bar and Bench and consequently affects the legal system. The primary focus of law schools should be to identify the various skills that define a lawyer and then train and equip its students with requirements of the field of law.

History of Legal Education

Legal historians record instances of legal practitioners indigenously known as ‘Pleaders’ or ‘Niyogis’ representing parties in litigation at least from the time of Manu Smriti.  There are difference of opinion on the exact role these ‘lawyer’ played in ancient times and whether they aware at all organized as a profession. Legal system in India is the natural outcome of its deep roots in ancient Indian traditions. It has existed in India from the dawn of Aryan civilization. But there are different viewpoints in the matter of legal education in ancient India. Dr.Kane quotes Sukraniti IV 5, pp.114-117 to say that a person appointed to represent a party should get as his wage 1/16, 1/20, 1/40, 1/80, 1/60 part of the amount in dispute. K.P.Jayaswal observes that professional lawyers existed in India at least from the Manu Smriti. According to Dr.Kane, a person well versed in Dharma Shastra and procedure of law could be appointed as the representative. The King should punish any representative who took wages without having these qualifications. According to P.V.Kane there could be some people who represented others in the Kings Court, but the opinions of such legal experts were not binding on the King.

Legal Education in Ancient India:

In ancient India law was understood as a branch of Dharma. It is difficult to draw a distinction between secular law and religious ordinances in Ancient India[ii]. The Vedas were the original sources of law, and the Smritis announced the message of Vedas and Smritikars were great jurists. Smritikars, commentators and Nibandhakars [essayists] were the legal guardians of law. King made laws were also interpreted, thus, the commentators were virtually law-makers. Sadachara, custom, Nyaya or Yukti were the base of legal process in Ancient India. The King was advised by a Sabha which had both advisory and executive functions. The parishad was an expert committee comprised of ministers of officials, generally Brahmans, who advised the King authoritatively on law.[iii]

 The concept of dharma, in the Vedic period, can be seen as the concept of the legal education in India. Although there is no record of formal training in law, the dispensation of justice was to be done by the king on the basis of a self-acquired training. Justice was also administered by the King through his appointees who in turn were persons of known integrity and reputation of being fair and impartial. The guiding force for the King or his appointee was the upholding of the Dharma.

Legal Education in British India

Britishers came to this country for the purpose of trade, which they started through a company popularly known as East India Company formed in 1600 in England. In the beginning the courts were presided by merchants who were having very rudimentary knowledge of law, but later on legally trained persons were put for the job.

First British court was established in Bombay in 1672 by Governor Gerald Angier. The first Attorney General appointed by Governor was George Wilcox who was acquainted with legal business and particularly in the administration of estates of deceased persons and granting of probate. He made provision for parties to be represented by attorneys and fixed the counsel fee a little more than Re.one. First concrete step in the direction of organising legal profession was taken through Regulating Act of 1773 which empowered to enrol advocates and Attorneys-at-law to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court was established in Fort William in Bengal through a charter issued in 1774. At that time Indian Lawyers had no right to appearance in the Courts. The position was same when the Supreme Courts with the same jurisdiction and power were established at Bombay and Madras later. The Bengal Regulation VII of 1793 which created for the first time a regular legal profession for the company’s courts, which allowed the appointment of Vakils or native pleaders in the courts of civil judicature in the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. In 1861 three High Courts were established at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. At this time three bodies of practitioners viz, advocates, Attorneys and Vakils were in existence.  Advocates were the barristers of England or Ireland but the Vakils were Indian Practioners. According to Clause 19 of Letters Patent 1865 of the High Court of Calcutta empowered the court to approve, admit and enrol such and so many Advocates, Attorneys and Vakils as the High Court shall deem fit. As already state Supreme Court not allowed but High Courts were allowed them which increased the prestige of Indian Lawyers. Legal Practioners Act, 1879, provided for enrolment to only those practioners who had taken LL.B degree from Indian Universities. Under Section 41, the High Court could dismiss any advocate or suspend him from practice by giving an opportunity to defend him. Bar Councils Act, 1926 unified two grades of legal practioners, the Vakils and Pleaders, by merging them in the class of advocates. It also provided for making rules for giving facilities of legal education and training.

The pattern of legal education which is in vogue in India was transplanted by the English; after the establishment of their rule in India. Formal legal education in India came into existence in 1855 when the first professorship of law was established at the Government Ephistone College in Bombay and Madras and Hindu College at Calcutta.  At that time the primary aim of legal education was to equip law students so that they could help the lower courts and the High Courts in the administration of justice by enrolling themselves as Vakils or becoming judicial officers, and thus serve the interests of the Administration.[iv]As majority of the population was rural and illiterate, the need was felt to bridge the gap between the existing law and the uneducated masses crying for justice, by rendering importance to formal legal education.  Initially a law school had to be a self – financing institution, and if possible a money making concern so that it could feed the teaching of other disciplines in the University. There is no tradition of legal research and academic legal training. In the year, 1857 legal education was introduced as a subject for teaching in three universities in the presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Thus, a beginning of the formal legal education was made in the sub-continent. The language of the British statutes being English, so any Indian who learnt English could study law and was considered qualified to practice the profession. At that time law classes were attached with arts colleges. However, if one aspired to something higher, he could go to England and join the Inns court, provided one could afford it.

For almost a century from 1857 to 1957 a stereotyped system of teaching compulsory subjects under a straight lecture method and the two year course continued. The need for upgrading legal education has been felt for long. Numerous committees were set up periodically to consider and propose reforms in legal education such as

·        Calcutta University Commission [1917-1919],

·        University Education Commission, was set up in 1948-49,

·        In the year 1949 the Bombay Legal Education Committee was set up to promote legal education. The All India Bar Committee made certain recommendations in 1951.

·        In 1954, XIVth [14th] Report the Law Commission (Setalvad Commission) of India discussed the status of legal education and recognized the need for reform in the system of legal education and made certain recommendations.

1.      Only graduates should be eligible for legal studies.

2.      The theory and principles of law should be taught in the law schools and the procedural law and the law of practical character should be taught by the Bar Council.

3.      The university course should be for two years and the Bar Council training should be for one year.

4.      The principal method of teaching being lecture to be supplemented by tutorials, seminars, moot courts, and case methods.

5.      Admission to law schools should be restricted on merit and seriousness.

6.      All India Bar Council should be empowered to ascertain whether law colleges maintain the requisite minimum standards and should be empowered to refuse recognition for law colleges.

The recommendations accepted by All India Law Conference [1959] and also the All India Law Teachers Association. After the year 1961 the Bar Council of India was empowered to lay down standards of Indian Legal education. In 1967 this body established a uniform three years LL .B Course with annual examinations and prescribed compulsory and optional subjects to be taught at LL.B level. Most of these subjects were traditional topics and there is no guidance relating to curriculum planning.

            It depicted a very gloomy picture of legal education. It was only from 1958 that many universities switched over to three year law degree courses. It was only by 1967, that it became onerous task for the three year law colleges to include procedural subjects into the curriculum of their law school.

Historical Background of Legal Education in Independent India

With the Independence the situation has completely changed. In 1950 we gave ourselves democratic foam of government. The rule of law became the foundational doctrine.  It is also clear that a polity based on rule of law would require a legal profession sufficiently skilled and possessing knowledge of laws and their principles in order to maintain and preserve the legal system.

The Advocates’ Act, enacted in 1961, became the focal point of the legal education system presently in existence. The Bar Council of India Rules, inducted under The Advocates’ Act 1961, lays down the curriculum for imparting legal education throughout India and these said Bar Council of India Rules have been governing the procedural aspects of legal education, including, but not restricted to, the subjects to be taught, mode of examination to be conducted, the various Degrees to be conferred on successful students and the like. It was only in 1967 that it became the burdensome task of the three year law colleges to include procedural subjects into the curriculum of their law school. The monologue lecture scheme adopted in law schools, where practical training is either totally neglected or marginally implemented at the level of Moot Courts, Court visits and legal research will not make good lawyers in today’s scheme of legal education.

Rules on Legal Education, which were incorporated into the pre-existing regulations, have been amended from time to time. There were demands for a consolidated latest version of the Rules under Part IV on standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for admission as Advocates from Universities and Colleges teaching Law in the Country. In response to popular demand, the Bar Council of India published the Rules in its final shape as applicable from 30 November 1998.

The minimum qualification for being an advocate is an LLB Degree, generally a three year course, which can be obtained after graduation in other disciplines. A debate as to its efficacy in the recent past led to a proposal of a five year integrated course after an intermediate (10+2) examination (from 1st class to 12th class - total period of 12 years of study). The three year course itself came to be restructured into a semestered system and several papers came to be included and excluded as per the Bar Council Guidelines. Hence, the Council today allows both the 3 year course and 5 year course to continue. The Advocates’ Act, enacted in 1961, became the focal point of the legal education system presently in existence. The Bar Council of India Rules, inducted under The Advocates’ Act 1961, lays down the curriculum for imparting legal education throughout India and these said Bar Council of India Rules have been governing the procedural aspects of legal education, including, but not restricted to, the subjects to be taught, mode of examination to be conducted, the various Degrees to be conferred on successful students and the like. It was only in 1967 that it became the onerous task of the three year law colleges to include procedural subjects into the curriculum of their law school. The monologue lecture scheme adopted in law schools, where practical training is either totally neglected or marginally implemented at the level of Moot Courts, Court visits and legal research will not make good lawyers in today’s scheme of legal education.

Agencies Regulating Legal Education.

The Constitution of India basically laid down the duty of imparting education on the states by putting the matter pertaining to education in List II of the Seventh Schedule. But it now forms part of List III, giving concurrent legislative powers to the Union and the States. Legal profession along with the medical and other professions also falls under List III (Entry 26). However, the Union is empowered to co-ordinate and determine standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions besides having exclusive power, inter alia, pertaining to educational institutions of national importance, professional, vocational or technical training and promotion of special studies or research.

      Empowered by the Constitution to legislate in respect of legal profession, Parliament enacted the Advocates Act, 1961, which brought uniformity in the system of legal practitioners in the form of Advocates and provided for setting up of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils in the States. Under clause (h) of sub-sec (1) of Sec.7 of the Advocates Act, 1961 the Bar Council of India has power to fix a minimum academic standard as a pre-condition for commencement of a studies in law . Under clause (i) of sub-sec (1) of Sec. 7, the Bar Council of India is also empowered "to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be taken as a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities". The Act thus confers on the Bar Council power to prescribe standards of legal education and recognition of law degrees for enrolment of persons as Advocates. However, for promoting legal education and for laying down standards of legal education, the Universities and State Bar Councils must be effectively consulted. The University Grants Commission has in the course of time evinced interest in improving legal education and has taken various steps towards at end, through adequate funding, creating of senior posts and other means.

Commissions, Committees and Statutes.

The objectives of commissions, committees and reports etc was to give their recommendations on reforming legal education in India. The main questions before all the committees, commissions and seminars etc. Were,

1.      What should be the pattern of the legal education be impacted by law colleges and law faculties of the universities to fulfil their mission.

2.      Should it be exclusively academic and theoretical or shoud it is exclusively practical and procedural?

3.      Should it be meant for any research purposes of law?

First Indian University Commission, 1902

Recommendations of Chagla Committee, 1910

Bills on Legal Education 1936-49

Bombay Legal Education Committee, 1949

All India Bar Committee, 1951-52

Rajasthan Legal Education Committee, 1955

Law Commission of India, 1958

Advocates Act, 1961

Gajendra Gadkar Committee, 1964

All India Seminars on Legal Education, 1972

Establishment of Bar Council of India Trust, 1974

Legal Education Seminar, Bombay, 1977

First National Convention on Legal Education, 1977

National Conference on legal Education, Hyderabad, 1981

All India Law Teachers Conference, 1981

Report of Bar Council of India, 1982

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987

Report of the Curriculum Development Centre in Law, 1990

Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995

Report of Professional Legal Education Reform Committee, 1996  

The Journey of Legal Education, from the crossroads to modernization

Prior to the introduction of five year law course, most of the students who performed well in their Intermediate Education aspired to study medicine, engineering, computers, business management and accounting. Law as a profession and legal education as a discipline was not a popular choice of the students. Unlike India, the situation prevalent in England, America and in many other developed countries is convincingly different. The admissions to law schools in these parts of the world are highly competitive. The end result is that the 'creams' among students opt for law by choice and not as the last resort and thus richly contribute their Shares to the society as lawyers, judges, paralegals and academics.
Though, five year law schools are doing their bit to bring about a change; but more effectively the perspective of prospective law students can be changed by a healthy pre-legal education at the school level.

New Challenges to the Legal Education in India:

Half a century ago, the main purpose of university legal education in India was not the teaching of law as a branch of learning and as a science but simply to impart to students a knowledge of the black letter law, that is, certain principles and provisions of law to enable them to enter the legal practice exclusively for local needs. Gradually this perception changed and the process of reform in law and legal education was initiated. The real break came in 1990s when the new challenges posed by scientific and technological revolution and greater interaction between nations, trade in goods and services, information technology and free capital flow across international boundaries made the world a global village. Consequently, the concept of “local practice” widened to that of “transnational practice” in the context of globalisation and opening up of most of the economies of the world.

Roscoe Pound directed to particular attention new aspect of the lawyers’ role in modern society. He said that the worldwide economic unification is challenging the self sufficiency n the systems of law. He pointed out that law transcended local and political limits and has become an economic necessity. He said “Even more the development of industry carried on with instrumentalities and under conditions increasingly dangerous to life and limb and under conditions creating ecological problems and the mechanizing of every activity of life likewise threatening injury to everyone, have been creating new legal problems calling for revision of the old doctrines and finding out a new means of promoting and maintaining a general security......thus the science of law must be increasingly comparative. Whether we are dreaming of a world law or thinking of further development of our own law, to suit to the worldwide problems of general security in the present and immediate future, the methods of jurist must have a base of comparison. Comparative law and international law have achieved such vital importance in current life that they have become an essential part of legal education. The lawyer of today has to play a role in influencing world policies and building up the future of mankind.”[v]

How should the legal profession and legal education respond to the new challenges? Never before in history has the need for sound thinking and planning on all issues been felt so intensely as today. Unless the topics of universal application are integrated into legal education in developing countries, our lawyers and those of other countries would not be able to compete in the transnational marketplace. In the present day, an innovative programme of integrated interdisciplinary legal learning and in the new areas such as Comparative Law, information technology, intellectual property, corporate governance, human rights, environment, and international trade law, investment, and commerce, transfer of technology, alternative dispute resolution and space is important. Comparative Legal education for professional excellence is needed in these and other areas on a global basis.

The world's problems require international co-operation and solutions, especially after the initiation of the liberalisation and globalisation process in today's world of increasing international trade and inter-dependence. The recent trend is that most of the agreements are construed internationally and the member countries are obliged to implement them at the domestic level. It is necessary for lawyers to understand the political, cultural and social influences on the legal systems of other countries and, by using that knowledge, to forge strong relationships between parties. Some observations of David Gerber are apposite in this context. For instance, Gerber calls for greater attention to theory in the broad sense of conceptual structure, because theories are the mechanisms for structuring information and knowledge effectively. The object of the entire exercise is to structure knowledge about foreign legal systems. Analogous to this viewpoint is the model suggested by Ugo Mattei. He argues for a classification of legal systems, which he refers to as taxonomy of legal systems for the purpose of learning from each other by rethinking the traditional boundaries drawn in the context of changing nature of global politics. This situation necessitates revisiting the classic categorisation of legal systems as civil, common and socialist.

For a new beginning, one has to think within the paradigm of change and bring to the forefront the need for developing new approaches to the ongoing challenges posed by globalization, which should be prioritized in the framework of legal education in a country such as India, in order to cope with the current and future pressures.

---

[i] Maxwell Cohen, ‘Condition of Legal Education in Canada”, 28 Canadian Bar Review, (1950) p.249 referred in Legal Education in India: Some suggestions AIR 1999 Journal 168 at p.169

[ii] S.K.Sharma, “Legal Profession in India” Sociology of Law and legal Profession, Ed.(1984) p.43 and also see P.V.Kane, “History of Dahrmasatras,6 volumns, Poona, 1930-62

[iii] Derret J Duncan.M., “Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law.

[iv] Legal Education in India: Some Suggestions, Dr.K.P.Singh, AIR 1999 Journal 168 at p.169

[v] Legal Education: Modern Trends and Challenges” , by Dr.Shobha Saxena, AIR 1999 Journal at p.160

All India Bar Exam- A Critique

The Bar Council of India (BCI) will hold the first All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) for fresh LLB graduates to get their certificate of practice (sanad) in December 2010, despite criticism from bar associations and the students. The first All India Bar Examination shall be mandatory for all law students graduating from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. Candidates may apply to appear for the All India Bar Examination only after enrolling as an advocate under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961

Its for the first time a bar exam is going to be conducted in India. I feel that most of the state bar councils are still not accustomed to conducting exams. The bar council may tie up with law colleges, universities like NALSAR, NLSUI, NUJS, etc. to conduct exams in respective states rather than joining hands with Rainmaker, a private firm for the conduct of the exam. This itself is highly questionable as they have not revealed the reasons for selection of rainmaker for the conduct of the exam.

Further Supreme court judgment in this regard (Sudeer's case) will be an impediment in introducing an exam without amendments to the advocates Act. The Advocates Act says that one has a right to practice as an advocate once one gets the law degree. In most law schools students have been recruited by law firms and there is problem for them joining these firms and some firms have taken a step back after the announcement of the bar exam. It is in a very short notice the BCI is conducting this.

The bar council says, All India Bar Examination, is intended to test an advocate’s ability to practice the profession of law in India. Are they admitting a failure of the present legal education system in India?. I strongly feel, by all means, it is best that the BCI plans the syllabus after consultation with various quarters so that the exam syllabus and exam pattern will very well test the competence of young lawyers. I also need to tell that many of the advocates already in practice do not know the basics of law. And such advocates are causing problem to clients, especially rural people. It would be better if the BCI considers conducting exams for all the existing advocates too and ask them to pass the exams within next few years.

An ‘IDIA’ whose time has come: Special Feature from the Sunday Indian !!

Our Einsteins live in our villages: that assertion by Dr CNR Rao, principal scientific advisor to the Prime Minister, has found an echo in the spirit that drives Shamnad Basheer's dream project, 'Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access (IDIA) in legal education’. “Our Palkhivalas are in our villages,” he could well be saying. Does the late jurist and economist Nani Palkhivala need an introduction? In a nation driven by the "either-a-doctor-or-an-engineer" credo, he probably does. And that explains why legal education remains out of bounds for large swathes of India. In June, a project team engaged in the IDIA sensitisation programme in Tumkur, Karnataka, faced a similar situation. As a part of the programme, some clippings of famous lawyers such as Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Jawaharlal Nehru, SM Krishna, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were played. Surprisingly, the students seemed most excited when told that Malavika Avinash, a Kannada television actress, was a lawyer who graduated from the National Law School of India University. In fact, the number of students who recognised Malavika was far more than those who could identify the US President. After the IDIA pilot project at Pelling, Sikkim, Prof Basheer admitted one of the main challenges: "Some of our brightest students (in Sikkim) who had done well in the aptitude test and seemed eager to seriously consider law as a career faced resistance from parents and teachers because they wanted them to be either doctors or engineers.” The situation is similar in Basanti High School in the Sunderbans. Here the IDIA team realised that school students had little idea about law as a career. Though they had heard of the three-year course they did not have any idea about the five-year integrated course that the National Law University offers. But the team IDIA still believes that “if all goes well, we can all hope that a legal Phunsuk Wangdu (the protagonist of 3 Idiots) will come out of a National Law University soon. After all, the 400 patents of the fictional Phunsuk Wangdu will need a good patent attorney!” With this notion, IDIA the ‘mass movement’ for a more diverse legal profession, kicks off at WB National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. IDIA is an initiative of the institute to make law education popular among economically and socially backward classes, the minorities, ethnic groups and the physically challenged. The national law schools are widely seen as the preeminent legal institutions in India. But over the years these institutions have turned into elitist hubs with a severe lack of representation from marginalised sections, particularly economically weaker sections. A variety of factors have contributed to this, including the extremely high fee structures, an entrance examination (CLAT) that now requires extensive and expensive coaching as a prerequisite, and most important, a lamentable lack of awareness about law as a career among low income students in small towns, rural areas and non-mainstream institutions

The net result is that the current student composition in many of these law schools lack any serious diversity and comprise mainly English-medium educated students from middle class or upper middle class families. The numbers from rural areas, small towns or non-English speaking schools are deplorable.  IDIA seeks to find ways to reach out to the hitherto marginalised and under-represented groups and help those interested to acquire admission to law schools. It is hoped that such access to legal education in favour of the marginalised and under-represented would empower them and the communities that they represent. According to Prof Basheer, who heads the project: “An efflux of diverse student populations would make for a more optimal melting pot of views and perspectives at such law schools and consequently enrich the process of education.” The programme has already travelled to Murshidabad and Pelling (in Sikkim). For the immediate future, apart from Bengali medium schools in Kolkata, southern India (Kerala) and central India (Chhattisgarh) will be covered. Keeping CLAT in mind, earlier this year, NUJS student Ramanuj Mukherjee, under the inspection of the university, independently launched an online social networking platform “CLAThacker: don't just crack CLAT, come hack CLAT with us”. The main idea is to help those from poorer backgrounds to "crack" the CLAT online. Not only that, in June IDIA Hyderabad conducted an aptitude test in an intermediate college run by Devnar Foundation in Ranigunj, Hyderabad. Talking to TSI, Mr Mukherjee expressed concern regarding the present scenario in legal education, “I can still remember when I decided to quit medical school after a year and get into NUJS, an army of relatives/well-wishers/acquaintances descended upon my parents asking how they could allow me to do something so "stupid"! Thankfully, my parents are of the opinion that children should be allowed to choose their own careers. But how many parents in India think along the same lines?” No doubt this is a great effort by the NUJS team. But will it at all be helpful for the masses? Questions have already started emerging. As one NUJS alumnus speculates, “A diverse selection of students would mean that more students would opt to litigate - their command over their local languages, added with premier education, would be an advantage that the entire legal community in the country will benefit from. But the fact is most of those who account for a majority of the students in law schools, do not litigate. Most actually opt for a comfortable life with a high-paying desk job instead of running around in courts and learning the "real" stuff.” “But yes, the fact remains that we need more "good" lawyers from different walks of life - law is, after all, meant for everyone, and not just for a high-flying, English-speaking bunch,” he says. That is why the idea that IDIA has come up with is so welcome. Source: Sunday Indian

Prof Madhava Menon outlines roadmap to reform 'sea of institutionalised mediocrity' in legal education

At a National Consultation organised by the Law Ministry during May 1-2, 2010, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described legal education in India as a “sea of institutionalised mediocrity with a few islands of excellence,” and stressed the need for dramatic reform in terms of its scope and quality. He wanted the legal education system to be sensitive to the needs of the marginalised sections of society, particularly in the context of globalisation and the retreat of the state from some of its traditional roles. He felt that in future, domestic legal mechanisms will increasingly interact with both international and foreign legal systems and that the law schools should prepare themselves to face consequent challenges. The reforms he suggested included multi-disciplinarity in legal studies, flexible curricula, improved service conditions for law teachers, continuing education programmes for legal professionals and placement-internship programmes for all students.

This subject has indeed received the attention of several expert committees recently, including the National Knowledge Commission and the Committee on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education (the Yash Pal Committee). These commissions and committees found three fundamental drawbacks in the objects, structure and content of legal education as it is being imparted in nearly a thousand law colleges in India, most of them functioning in the private sector.

First of all, the objects of legal education in the changing socio-economic context are neither clear nor prioritised. The Advocates Act and the Bar Councils seem to think that the only object of legal education is to produce lawyers to practise in courts. Today, people seek legal education for a variety of purposes: to meet the demands of trade, commerce, industry, governance and international relations. The practising profession itself is getting increasingly internationalised, warranting the study of other legal systems and practices. These multiple goals raise questions of content, structure and regulation.

Currently, the content of legal education is considered to be a function of the regulatory bodies (read Bar Council of India) and the universities are obliged to follow it. This has adversely affected curriculum development in terms of serving the multiple objects of legal education and inhibited innovation and experimentation that are essential for academic and professional excellence. In a sense, it has alienated law schools from its essential function of legal research and development.

Law grows when it engages with society and interacts with other branches of knowledge. Engagement with social problems and movements make legal education relevant and contextual. For this to happen, a liberal, holistic and decentralised approach to curriculum planning and development is necessary, for which each university teaching law should have the primary responsibility. This was the essence of the National Knowledge Commission's and the Yash Pal Committee's recommendations. In other words, according to the expert committees the future of legal education will depend on how the role of universities (law schools) is conceived on the one hand, and on what the goals and objects of legal education are determined to be, on the other. Whichever way one looks at the situation, one thing is clear: the existing regulatory mechanism under the Advocates Act, 1961 is far too weak and inadequate to chart the future course of legal education.

Access and equity are important considerations in higher education, and this is particularly so in law education. The Bar Council's efforts over the last 50 years did succeed in making the so-called legal education accessible to all sections and keeping the costs low for students. But in the process, quality was neglected or allowed to be diluted. Many universities practically avoided their responsibilities, and put the entire blame on the Bar Council. An attempt was made at the instance of the Bar Council to improve quality by introducing the five-year integrated LL.B. programme, and by establishing a series of autonomous National Law Schools. But they have remained islands “in a sea of mediocrity” — as the Prime Minister described it.

The challenge before legal educators and the regulators of higher education today is two-fold.

First, how to promote competitive excellence in a global context in the few National Law Schools and others of its kind that are maintaining some degree of quality in education. Secondly, how to take the mediocre institutions — which are too many in number — to improve their performance towards achieving some degree of professionalism and academic excellence in the shortest possible time.

The major problems cited in this regard are inadequacy of resources including lack of competent teachers in adequate numbers. Given that most of these institutions are privately managed and have very little investment and faculty resources, it is not possible to transform them unless the managements themselves mobilise the finances. Others that are in the government sector, including university departments, can prepare plans for development and seek funds from governments, Central and State. There exists a case to increase tuition fees and development charges while making the institutions provide better teaching and learning facilities to consumers of education.

Finally, if quality is to be improved the key institutions for regulating legal education should be the universities themselves. Let there be competition among universities to deliver quality educational services. The external regulator's function should be limited to setting goals, setting minimum standards, and facilitating the exercise of academic autonomy by individual institutions. In this regard, the proposal of the Knowledge Commission for a multi-member single regulator involving all stakeholders is an excellent idea that deserves attention. The shortage of teachers can be addressed partly through a flexible approach in faculty composition: this may include more visiting and adjunct teachers, partnership arrangements, contractual engagement of professionals and so on. There could also be an organised plan to prepare teachers by selected institutions with special support from government.

It will take a decade or more to create a research environment in the existing law schools, particularly for cutting-edge research that contribute to law reform and development. Meanwhile, the recommendation of the Knowledge Commission to set up a few advanced research centres that can attract available talent to plan and develop legal research is worthy of immediate attention. This is where the Central government should invest, as it did in the field of scientific and industrial research in the early 1960s and 1970s. They can be networked with the law schools of the region: this will be of mutual advantage.

The initiative on Second Generation Reforms developed by the Union Law Ministry (2010) and the Task Force on Legal Education constituted by the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development should work together to develop a plan of action to push forward the agenda of legal education reforms. This should serve not only the needs of the practising profession but also the emerging demands of society and government for law trained persons. The Judicial Academies training judges should tie up with selected law schools of the region to enrich the content and process of judicial education and training, while providing opportunities to law schools to understand and inform themselves of the problems and challenges of the administration of justice. Bar Councils should set up a chain of continuing legal education centres, similarly tying up with law schools for mutual benefit. What the nation needs now is an organised movement involving legal educators, lawyers and judges, not only to learn the practice of law but to transform law and legal institutions to maximise justice in society and to put legal education at the centre for better governance under democracy and rule of law.

Source:- http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article470073.ece?homepage=true