These islands of excellence should not be wasted

Recently, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), NV Ramana made several observations related to legal education through his addresses in various universities. He observed that national law universities were being perceived as ‘elite and alienated from social realities’ because not enough students were joining the bar. He said that even among those who joined the bar, there was a tendency to practice at the level of the Supreme Court and High Courts of India, ignoring the practice of litigation. Earlier in the year, the CJI had remarked that law graduates were incapable of handling the profession and that substandard legal educational institutions were a worrying trend in the country. Additionally, the CJI had recently made a remark that the focus on legal education should be on practice and not theory.

The CJI’s words are a welcome reason for introspection. As institutions capable of fundamentally changing the country’s legal landscape in the coming decades, such comments should not be dismissed casually. So far, the experiment of National Law Universities has yielded mixed results. While they have been celebrated as ‘islands of excellence’ in a ‘mediocre sea’, as conceivable from the CJI’s observations, they are also perceived by many as aloof from society. But this is just one of the many contradictions that national law universities are facing today. The first paradox is that even though national law universities are criticized for providing pedagogy focused on securing placements in corporate and corporate firms, these placements are seen as an important marker in determining the success of national law universities. is taken.

Another paradox is that even though they are called ‘national’ law universities, they are established and partially funded by state governments. Therefore, national law universities have to operate in an increasingly fluid political environment. With the reduction in state funding, most of the national law universities are facing a serious crisis. The ‘national’ character of these universities stems from their cosmopolitan demographic profile of students and teachers. More recently, this ‘national’ profile of national law universities has increasingly had to navigate pressures in many states, being the primary custodians of national law universities, able to influence a number of key issues, such as domicile. -based reservation and pay scale option.

research driven academics

The perceived separation between social realities and legal education can be bridged only when research emanating from national law universities addresses social issues and provides practical and practical solutions. Therefore, there is a need to focus on promoting research-driven academics. For this we need to move beyond the rigid framework created by the Bar Council of India and the University Grants Commission, for example, requiring faculty to do at least lecture hours per week, etc. Separate faculties are needed for teaching and research. Research driven academics should also be encouraged through institutional arrangements and schemes to encourage it. National Law Universities can no longer survive as mere educational institutions.

internal issues

National Law Universities are facing stiff competition from upcoming private universities face to face Quality faculty exposed to best practices and these universities miss out on such faculty due to several factors including harsh pay scales. While recruitment of faculty holding foreign degrees is not the only solution, training of existing faculty in traditional methods of knowledge delivery cannot be expected to serve the purpose for which national law universities were created. This results in the demand of better faculty, pedagogy and curriculum from the students. While the distribution of these demands varies from national law university to national law university, these issues have been at the center of student protests at many universities.

Another reason for student protests at national law universities has been the leadership’s inability to adequately meet the needs of students, faculty and staff. Avoidable conflicts occur when day-to-day problems remain unresolved. Decisions to resolve the issues should be taken firmly and in a time bound manner without any delay. This problem continues to grow as the state withdraws its funding and national law universities are left to generate their own resources. This will require spontaneity and entrepreneurial performance in raising adequate finance in the face of ever-increasing expenditure.

It is equally important that teaching should focus on the practical aspects of law rather than just theory. The courses should invigorate our classrooms with the experience of physicians and equip our students with a practical understanding of the workings of laws and the justice system. Our judges and advocates should be obliged to contribute to the classes. They should be encouraged to offer paid internships to students to enhance their learning experiences.

Finally, it should also be understood that the purpose of education at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels is fundamentally different. The focus of education at the undergraduate level should be practice-oriented, with a focus on providing students with the ability to learn and understand. On the other hand, the focus of pedagogy at the postgraduate level should be academic with emphasis on providing students with the ability to not only critically evaluate but apply knowledge. This is critical if we are to create well-rounded and quality faculty who can make meaningful contributions to the academic discourse.

for the long term

As per the National Policy on Education, the size and content of the Single Discipline University is to change soon. Therefore, there is a need to plan the future vision of National Law Universities in the context of becoming multi-university, covering subjects of vital importance, including awarding degrees other than law discipline. Also, there is a need to set up an independent regulator for legal education in India. National Law Universities can collaborate in a significant way to benefit each other by sharing human resources and expertise.

With the exception of a few national law universities, most have a long way to go with respect to many of the points raised above. This article is not intended to justify or clarify the comments of the CJI. Instead, it aims to introspect and understand problem areas that need improvement. As mentioned earlier, National Law Universities have the potential to change the legal landscape of our country. But much still needs to be done before such potential can be realized.

GS Bajpayee is the Vice Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi National Law University, Punjab. views expressed are personal