Some recent landmark decisions

For the benefit of our readers and also to catch-up the recent developments, we are running in this post short notes on some of the landmark decisions in recent past. These decisions are landmark on various counts; either they reveal a jurisprudence shift or they deal with a legal controversy which was vividly followed up by national media and the citizens alike. Some are landmark on account of the sheer fact of these decisions being rendered by larger bench of the Supreme Court and thus an important and likely stable constitutional declaration flows from these decisions.

Constitution Bench decisions

1. This series of two decisions is actually a revisit of the constitutional stipulations relating to appointment of judges amongst the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The law was firmly settled by earlier larger bench decisions. However the incumbent Government initiated the process which led to amendment of the Constitution. This amendment was meant to bring in place a new positive legal order regarding the appointment process. In the first decision i.e. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015, decision dated 16.10.2015], a five-judges bench of the Supreme Court declared the amendment to the illegal being contrary to the basic constitutional principles. In essence, therefore, they revived the appointment process in place prior to this arrangement known as the 'Collegium'. However in this decision itself the judges agreed that there was room for improvement in the Collegium system and this led to the second decision. In this decision i.e. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015, decision dated 16.12.2015] the same five-judges of the Supreme Court broadly examined the suggestions received from various quarters towards improving the Collegium system, only to conclude that it was beyond the judicial realm to lay down the policy. On such account it directed the Government of India to frame 'Memorandum of Procedures' which would serve as the Working Document and lay down the protocol for the appointment of the judges. These decisions are landmark in various senses. Firstly they are by constitutional benches and thus carry significant weight. Secondly, there is a significant discussion on the 'basic structure principle' and also the importance of 'judicial review' and 'independence of judiciary', which are key constitutional tenets. Thirdly and more importantly, it is rare for the Supreme Court to declare as illegal a constitutional amendment and thus these decisions carry significant insight on the subject. 

 

 

2. The decision of another five-judges bench of the Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker [Civil Appeal No. 6203-6204/2016 decision dated 13.07.2016] is another significant decision for it delineates the scope and ambit of the powers vested in a Governor of a State under the Constitution. In this decision the Court was examining the allegations that the Governor did not adopt a bipartisan role which was expected of him and instead went beyond the scope of authority conferred upon him. In fact in this decision the Supreme Court reinstated the exective Government which had not found favour amongst the stipulations of the Government, which makes it perhaps an unprecedented decision on large counts. The case also involved the relationship between the Government and Speaker of a Legislative Assembly and how far could the Governor direct the Speaker to carry out specified functions. 

 

 3. Another decision, also of five-judges of the Supreme Court is in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 185/2014 decision dated 02.12.2015] which dilutes a number of decisions on the subject as also the common understanding to declare that a life sentence means imprisonment till the end of life. There was a common understanding that life sentence means 14 years. However the Court has declared otherwise and held that the power of the Government to remit sentence after 14 years is not a matter of right but only a possibility for early release. This decision also declares that the Court has power to give a fixed sentence (say 20 years) to a person without any possibility of early release.

Some other decisions, but not of constitution benches of Supreme Court

4.  This decision in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal [Civil Appeal No. 8438/2016] runs into over 200 pages and relates to validity of land acquisition in West Bengal relating to Tata Nano plant. Dealing with a very emotive issue for the local residents and also a politically sensitive matter for the incumbent government, the Supreme Court has dealt extensively with land acquisition laws and the interse considerations required to be considered for upholding acquisition of land. In conclusion the Supreme Court has directed that "land shall be given back to the land owners and compensation if any paid to them shall not be recovered from them those who have not collected it are free to collect the same in lieu of damages for deprivation of possession for ten years".


5.  Additionally, another Supreme Court decision is the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union fo India [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012, decision dated 24.03.2015] where certain provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been declared as unconstitutional and illegal for they are impediment to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution to its citizens. This decision renders interesting insights, also on a comparative legal analysis perspective, the various dimensions of free-speech jurisprudence and its ambit under the Constitution of India. A must read for students.


6. In a very recent decision in Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2016, decision dated 30.09.2016] the Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted by the High Court to Md. Shahabuddin. This decision presents interesting insights over the competing considerations between personal liberty of an individual and the larger societal interests. Referring to its earlier decisions on the subject, the Supreme Court held that it was important to balance the "fundamental right to individual liberty with the interest of the society".


7. While this is not a decision, this nonetheless has severe ramifications for the future of Supreme Court. In V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 36 of 2016 order dated 13.07.2016] three judges of the Supreme Court have referred to a larger bench adjudication of certain constitutional questions, which are as under;

1. With access to justice being a fundamental right, would the said right stand denied to litigants, due to the unduly long delay in the disposal of cases in the Supreme Court?
2. Would the mere increase in the number of judges be an answer to the problem of undue delay in disposal of cases and to what extent would such increase be feasible?
3. Would the division of the Supreme Court into a Constitutional wing and an appellate wing be an answer to the problem?
4. Would the fact that the Supreme Court of India is situate in the far North, in Delhi, rendering travel from the Southern states and some other states in India, unduly long and expensive, be a deterrent to real access to justice?
5. Would the Supreme Court sitting in benches in different parts of India be an answer to the last mentioned problem?
6. Has the Supreme Court of India been exercising jurisdiction as an ordinary court of appeal on facts and law, in regard to routine cases of every description?
7. Is the huge pendency of cases in the Supreme Court, caused by the Court not restricting its consideration, as in the case of the Apex Courts of other countries, to Constitutional issues, questions of national importance, differences of opinion between different High Courts, death sentence cases and matters entrusted to the Supreme Court by express provisions of the Constitution?
8. Is there a need for having Courts of Appeal, with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and finally decide the vast proportion of the routine cases, as well as Article 32 petitions now being decided by the Supreme Court of India, especially when a considerable proportion of the four million cases pending before the High Court may require review by a higher intermediate court, as these judgments of the High Courts may fail to satisfy the standards of justice and competence expected from a superior court?
9. If four regional Courts of Appeal are established, in the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western regions of the Country, each manned by, say, fifteen judges, elevated or appointed to each Court by the Collegium, would this not satisfy the requirement of ‘access to justice’ to all litigants from every part of the country?
10. As any such proposal would need an amendment to the Constitution, would the theory of ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution be violated, if in fact, such division of exclusive jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal, enhances the efficacy of the justice delivery system without affecting the independence of the judicial wing of the State?
11. In view of cases pending in the Supreme Court of India on average for about 5 years, in the High Courts again for about 8 years, and anywhere between 5- 10 years in the Trial Courts on the average, would it not be part of the responsibility and duty of the Supreme Court of India to examine through a Constitution Bench, the issue of divesting the Supreme Court of about 80% of the pendency of cases of a routine nature, to recommend to Government, its opinion on the proposal for establishing four Courts of Appeal, so that the Supreme Court with about 2500 cases a year instead of about 60000, may regain its true status as a Constitutional Court?

8. And then in this series, we refer to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5888/2015 decision dated 04.08.2016] where the High Court has opined upon the interse powers of the Government of India and the Government of NCT of Delhi. Running into about 200 pages, this decision relied upon a nine-judge Supreme Court decision in New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 339 to hold that Delhi continues to be Union Territory, albeit with special status, but does not enjoy statehood. This decision opines upon a long pending political struggle in Delhi and may not be the last word on the subject as the Supreme Court is currently seized of the dispute. Nonetheless various interesting aspects relating to the special position of Delhi and its legal attributes.

National Consultation for Second Generation Reforms in Legal Education

The Ministry of Law and Justice, in collaboration with the Bar Council of India and National Law University, Delhi, is organising a National Consultation for Second Generation Reforms in Legal Education on 1st and 2nd May, 2010 at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi which will be inaugurated by Prime Minister of India and the Chief Justice of India will deliver a special address. The Union Minister for Law & Justice, Dr. M. Veerappa Moily, would present a vision statement for Second Generation Reforms in Legal Education.

The purpose of the said National Consultation is to identify the major challenges the Legal Education is facing at present and to draw a roadmap for bringing radical institutional reforms in legal education to meet not only the requirements of the bar but the needs of trade, commerce and industry in view of growing internationalization of the legal profession.

The National Consultation would be attended by Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Attorney General for India, Solicitor General of India and Additional Solicitors Generals, Chairman and other members of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils, leading lawyers, eminent Professors of Law, faculty members of Law Universities/Colleges and other institutions. 

Read more at the PIB Press Release.

Reasons to be given for decisions: Supreme Court

In a recently decided case the Supreme Court has urged the High Court to impress upon the them the time-tested needed and fundamental tenet of judicial system; to give reasons for their decisions. A mere glimpse of the facts would make it obvious, though, for this request. The compensation for land acquisition in some matter was fixed by the Reference officer at Rs. 4,00,000 per acre. This was challenged in appeal before the High Court, reducing the       compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,75,200/- per acre. This was challenged before the Supreme Court. 

In these facts, the Supreme Court noted, "We find that the judgment of the High Court is very short and sketchy and does not contain any facts. It contains only a reference to a table of sale statistics relating to nine transactions given by the sub-Registrar and the following reasoning : 'In the present case the notification is dated 26th March, 2002. The sale of one gunta sold in Sy. No.6 for R.1400 the value of land at that rate would Rs.156,000. If 33% is deducted towards development charges the compensation would be Rs.3,75,200/- per acre.' It is not possible to discern either the facts or the reasons for the decision. There is no reference to the findings of the reference court. There are several errors in the two sentences deciding the appeals."

With the background, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for judicial reasoning as the touch-stone of fairness in decision making and also as the rationale for the appellate review. The Supreme Court noted;

We are conscious of the high pendency and work load on the High Courts. Some learned Judges, in their effort to speed up disposals and reduce pendency, tend to write cryptic and short orders. While expedition and brevity is to be encouraged and appreciated, the   importance of reasons in support of the decision cannot be ignored. If judgments in first appeals are written without reference to     facts    (where   decision     is    on   facts)   or   without assigning any justifiable reason/s for the decision, they will be open to legitimate criticism. The litigants will be puzzled by the lack of reasoning and will lose faith in the institution. Further any appellate court will not be able to fathom whether the judgment is correct or not. Courts, whose judgments are subject to appeal have to remember that the function of a reasoned judgment are:

(i) to inform the litigant the reasons for the decision; 

(ii) to demonstrate fairness and correctness of the decision; 

(iii) to exclude arbitrariness and bias; and 

(iv) to enable the appellate/revisional court to pronounce upon the correctness of the decision. 

In this scenario, the Supreme Court sent the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration and to dispose of the matter by supplying reasoning to that regard. Have a look at the decision.

Lon Fuller's Speluncean Explorers Case: A touch-stone of judicial reasoning

For a student of law or even for a lay-man, the process of unveiling how judicial decisions are prejudiced by the personal inhibition of the judges and how legal reasoning is adopted to sustain such decisions cannot perhaps be better explained than by the erudite enunciation by Lon Fuller in his famous work "The Case of Speluncean Explorers' published originally in 1949 in Harvard Law Review. 

The case, though a fictional one, brings out the inherent contrast in judicial reasoning when a hypothetical Supreme Court of Newgarth is faced with the appeal of the four men who are convicted of having killed and eaten one of their kind. The five people (including the deceased, Roger) were the members of 'Speluncean Society', an organization of amateurs interested in the exploration of caves. Along with Roger they penetrated into the interior of a limestone cavern which, while they were inside, witnessed a landslide. "Heavy boulders fell in such a manner as to block completely the only known opening to the cave. When the men discovered their predicament they settled themselves near the obstructed entrance to wait until a rescue party should remove the detritus that prevented them from leaving their underground prison." "The work of removing the obstruction was several times frustrated by fresh landslides. In one of these, ten of the workmen engaged in clearing the entrance were killed. ... Success was finally achieved on the thirty-second day after the men entered the cave."


Meanwhile the trapped explorers,  finding nothing to survive on, faced death by starvation. After somehow managing a few days of ordeal, though a communication device, "the imprisoned men described their condition and the rations they had taken with them, and asked for a medical opinion whether they would be likely to live without food for ten days longer. The chairman of the committee of physicians told them that there was little possibility of this." "When the imprisoned men were finally released it was learned that on the twenty-third day after their entrance into the cave (Roger) Whetmore had been killed and eaten by his companions." 


It was in this background that the rescued men faced the charges of murder of Roger. During the course of the trial it was learned that "it was Whetmore who first proposed that they might find the nutriment without which survival was impossible in the flesh of one of their own number. It was also Whetmore who first proposed the use of some method of casting lots, calling the attention of the defendants to a pair of dice he happened to have with him. The defendants were at first reluctant to adopt so desperate a procedure, but after the conversations by wireless related above, they finally agreed on the plan proposed by Whetmore. After much discussion of the mathematical problems involved, agreement was finally reached on a method of determining the issue by the use of the dice."


"Before the dice were cast, however, Whetmore declared that he withdrew from the arrangement, as he had decided on reflection to wait for another week before embracing an expedient so frightful and odious. The others charged him with a breach of faith and proceeded to cast the dice. When it came Whetmore's turn, the dice were cast for him by one of the defendants, and he was asked to declare any objections he might have to the fairness of the throw. He stated that he had no such objections. The throw went against him, and he was then put to death and eaten by his companions."



On these facts, the jury found the defendants guilty of having murdered Roger and accordingly they were ordered to have hanged. It was in this background that the Supreme Court was faced with the issue whether the jury had been correct in arriving at this decision, where the defendants were faced with extreme physical and mental conditions, being cut off from the society and living during that period under the 'laws of nature'. 


Though we would not kill the excitement of the reader by over telling the judicial reasoning, one may note that after an exhaustive description of judicial reasoning of the judges which comprised the bench, no decision could be arrived and the Court being evenly split, the death sentence was affirmed. For having a look at the judicial reasoning, please read the intriguingly famous work of Lon Fuller as a post-script of which he states that "the Speluncean Case itself is intended neither as a work of satire nor as a prediction in any ordinary sense of the term" but the "case was constructed for the sole purpose of bringing into a common focus certain divergent philosophies of law and government. These philosophies presented men with live questions of choice in the days of Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps they will continue to do so when our era has had its say about them. If there is any element of prediction in the case, it does not go beyond a suggestion that the questions involved are among the permanent problems of the human race."

Law teachers to practice and quota of female law students

These are two news items which really did not allow me to just mention them in the updates section and prompted a separate comment on both of them. The first relates to the relaxation in the rules by the Bar Council of India to allow law teachers to simultaneously practice in courts. The second reports the decision of certain law schools to enforce quota on admissions setting aside place for girls. Since I can relate myself to both these issues, so I better thought wise than not to write on them.

As far the relaxation in rules permitting Law Teachers to practice in courts (ofcourse only when they hold a qualifying degree), the proposal is heartening indeed. [click here for the full news-piece] Hitherto the position had been that those intended to teach full-time had to surrender they right to practice in courts (probably because it was thought that allowing both to be done together would lead to injustice to both the streams; teaching and litigation) and thus those going in the academic mainstream had to shed off the joys which can truly be experienced only a court room.

The reason that is being assigned to amend this situation is cited as the problem of retaining and attracting talent in the teaching profession. While their counterparts in other countries are actively involved in both the courts and class rooms, this is not the situation is India and therefore those exceptionally good ones are siphoned off from devoting themselves to the nurturing of talent as they cannot really leave their litigation-involvement and visiting-faculty method does not really work. I had on an earlier occasion commented upon the deterioration of teaching standards across the country [click here for the full post] and had also pointed out the the pay-structure and the administrative bureaucracy are the major reasons behind this decline of educational standards. This late but subtle realization by policy-makers (I sincerely hope it would be taken further) is indeed not only an acknowledgment of the grim fact but also an attempt to improve the situation.


The second news item reporting about setting aside of seats in Law Schools for the fairer sex. [click here for the news item - I , news item - II ] Sounds good to me for the reason for inbuilt check to be installed; the cut-off criterion for it would mean that education standards do not fall because of reservation. The requirement to score minimum 50 percent would mean that only those serious about law education would be able to realize the benefits of this reservation (and yes, I am aware of the potential pitfalls it may carry but then such a safeguard is required to maintain the integrity of the education system and ensure that those availing the opportunity to enter the law school through the reservation medium do not lag behind later on for lack of ability to cope with those coming of from merit lists).

Though I have been a staunch opposer of reservation (for the way it has been implemented in the country has failed to produce the results which an affirmative action programme should bring about; for more read my earlier post on the issue) but then when the benefit outweighs the fallouts, it is worthwhile to follow the approach in a limited sense. But why do I say this? I say this because this manner of implementing reservation does not do grave injustice. If the female application is able to score minimum 50% marks (as reported in the news items) then she does merit consideration for law school admission and merely because she has been unable to come up on the merit list, does not imply that she should be devoid of the potentials she carries in this proud profession. At least this much the system owes to the bearers of motherhood and fraternity, if we are not grateful for more. If, however, the set aside 30 percent seats are not fully occupied by the female applications, then such remaining seats would be diverted to the general category and thus the system would find worthy and deliverable assets towards joining the leagues of the profession.

For these reasons I find this step worthwhile in the right direction the way it has been promised. However I do not vouchsafe against the possible fallouts that we might come across with a faulty handling of the system and possible abuses that might be set in. But then there is always a hope against hope and I rely on that, keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best for the country and profession.

Elementary Legal Education- Time to Make a Move?

Well, I believe that this idea must have been mooted in India before my writing this post. Nevertheless, I want to swing the intellectual limelight anew on this issue and wish that it receives attention on the boards of Knowledge Commission and other higher functionaries very soon, for the simple reason that riding on Abdul Kalam’s ‘Wings of Fire’, we are going to be a economically developed nation in the near future. Look at developed nations around the world and you will find that a population informed of its legal rights and duties is indispensable for such a transition; be it the Englishman with a belief in Rule of Law (as Dicey, a great English scholar, has put it) or the 'litigation-oriented' American (as everyone puts it).

One personal reason for making this call for elementary legal education is a realization on my part of the importance of knowledge of ‘law’ in a citizen’s life and of the futility of all course contents that we make students (like me) to mug up till the 12^th standard. I am not denying the practical utility of the latter in our nation’s life but it has to be realized that all our endeavors are aimed at ‘happiness’ (of one and of all) and this whole system of governance has been devised as a means to that end. We as citizens go through the rigours of elections to devise laws to maximize our happiness and thus, we cannot afford to live in the blissful state of ignorance of law. I will try to explain my contention as lucidly as possible in the following paragraphs.

Beneath the complex system of laws that govern the citizenry, there lies a mass of different desirable social objectives to be attained through a series of structured legal norms. In every society, more so pronounced in a democratic civilized society, these norms keep the cohesive fabric of society intact by either proscribing pernicious conduct or regulating and facilitating everyday transactions between any citizen and the society. Laws affect every aspect of life by defining the precincts of ‘rights’, ‘freedoms’ and ‘liberties’ and prescribing a code of directives on fundamental aspects like birth, marriage, maintenance, proprietary transactions like will, gift, sale, mortgage. It prescribes the content of contractual documents and lays condition for legal enforcement of such transactions. Violation of legal provisions entails liabilities in form of penalties or by rendering transactions ineffective. However, the legal system does not recognize the ignorance of legal provisions as a defence to any defaulter. In such a scenario, a legally informed citizenry is essential if laws are to have any meaning just like a game where the players should be aware of the essential rules.

The Indian democratic structure is premised on the concept of ‘Rule of Law’; a fact which the Supreme Court reiterates every time it acts as the ‘sentinel on qui vive’ (guardian) for the Fundamental Rights of the citizenry against governmental transgressions. However, the important question is how many of the 1.2 billion people know what Rule of Law is? Even if we leave apart this question as one concerning a hyper-technical legal term, how many educated people really know about the content of some of the basic laws? Sadly, a country which claims to be governed by rule of law and not of men , scarcely recognizes that the whole democracy, about which there is so much hullabaloo, is only a institutionalized means of law making and law implementation. It is essential to seek what the real nature of law is. Those who perceive law as a mere subject in which only advocates and jurists should indulge in, most conveniently forget that law is just another form of a social norm having the authority of State behind it and made through the democratic process we have in place today. How can a society ensure order amongst its members if the majority is unaware of the rules of conduct? How can a country which claims to be the most populous democracy in the world take pride in its development if majority of its citizens are legally ignorant? Can the Indian State still boast of a golden fabric of ‘Rule of Law’ when its student community is blissfully ignorant of the system in which they are going to earn and live?

The Civics textbooks at school level offer only a dribble of knowledge about the law making process and some fundamental rights, which does not help as no one can really ‘learn’ anything significant in the cram-and-vomit culture prevalent today; of which I have been a part very recently. To crown it, a majority of students are driven into the rat race of engineering through premier institutes like IITs and NITs or medical education through CPMT. Nobody takes the dull Civics textbook seriously and the only important subjects are Science and Mathematics. Our system may be producing many good engineers and doctors but where is that single legally educated responsible citizen coming out from schools? Far from being an unsubstantiated claim it is a sad realization, even on my part, that this sort of education stunts growth of thinking and learning capabilities. It rips apart our constitutional dream of engendering a scientific temper and a spirit of inquiry. But since the majority is not aware of what Article 51A is all about, no one is bothered.

Amidst a culture where education has been commercialized, where it saps the intellectual freedom out of an individual through a rote routine and where a frenetic rat race for engineering and medical education through premier institutions has driven the students in a whorl of coaching and tuition centres, something little in us seems lost. It should not be forgotten that the life and liberty of every individual is linked to ‘law’. But how effectively can a person protect the former if he has no knowledge of the latter. Take for example a simple case where a college student involved in a small brawl is arrested by the Police, handcuffed and paraded through the campus to set example for others. The boy’s dignity has been besmirched by handcuffing which is not permissible except in extreme cases. The boy, if legally ignorant of the basic right, will do nothing while the same boy, if aware of the right, could have sought damages from the authorities for an undue incursion on his right to live with dignity. More than the content, what is required to be taught is ‘respect for laws’. People violate traffic rules, not solely because they are not aware of them, but more because the knowledge evokes no sense of responsibility in them. Though many may differ on this point, yet it is quiet right to propose that respect can be engendered if the minds are conditioned in a proper way during the childhood. The issue is not a trivial one but it goes to the roots of what is going wrong and offers us an opportunity to enkindle a national debate about elementary legal education.

I know the post has been a long one but I firmly believe that I have driven home a point.

Knowledge Commission of India: Pioneering Legal Education Reform

If asked to mention one of the achievements of Manmohan Singh’s government at the centre which truly defy the test of times and come at par with other eccentric moves towards development of the country, I would be quick to point out the establishment of the ‘National Knowledge Commission of India’. It has really been a boon under the wide powers vested under the Constitution with which the executive governments in India have come out with such commissions on regular basis, which have led defining movements in Indian history and I am sure that the Knowledge Commission would only further the trend. Taking cue from its predecessor (the ‘Planning Commission’, which again is only an executive body and not envisaged under the original Constitution), the Knowledge Commission has already set to task the efforts required to attain its objectives, which interestingly are very wide worded and if given their full effect, would lead India nothing short of a super-brain-power.

Defining its objectives, the website of the Commission sets out the following;

The overarching aim of the National Knowledge Commission is to enable the development of a vibrant knowledge based society. This entails both a radical improvement in existing systems of knowledge, and creating avenues for generating new forms of knowledge.

Greater participation and more equitable access to knowledge across all sections of society are of vital importance in achieving these goals.

In view of the above, the NKC seeks to develop appropriate institutional frameworks to:

• Strengthen the education system, promote domestic research and innovation, facilitate knowledge application in sectors like health, agriculture, and industry.
• Leverage information and communication technologies to enhance governance and improve connectivity.
• Devise mechanisms for exchange and interaction between knowledge systems in the global arena.

And amongst this what I like is that in this incredibly short period of two years (yes, it is short compared to the time the various inquiry commissions etc. take to come out with reports which by the time are published are already obsolete), the Commission has already submitted five major reports on equally critical and important areas of concern for the country and has given its recommendations on a whole lot of areas, all of which are promising and require a careful handling in order to translate them into harbingers of growth for the country.

But then again (as I always believe in the justification approach) what is it in terms for law that I mention the Knowledge Commission on this blog? Well, it is for the Recommendations given by the Commission on ‘Legal Education’ in the country. [click here for full report] And that I really look forward for the recommendations to be implemented, I might as well go on to mention a few of them, which I think are really pivotal to bring out the best in the already intellectually sound legal fraternity in India.

The first key recommendation is the setting up of an ‘Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education’ or simply IRAHE. I really admire the reason for various reasons. First and foremost is the fact that this comes from top legal luminaries of India. Engaged for the preparation of the report were seven top legal academicians and luminaries of India all of whom have a laudable history of devotion and commitment to the profession. So the suggestion is worthwhile to pursue. Second of all, the experience of handling of legal education by Bar Council of India (BCI) in conjunction (but really this has not been of any meaning at all) with the State Bar Councils. The BCI has already got its hands full with more work that it can do, which ranges right from the regulation of professionals at the bar but also ensuring the standards of legal ethics being maintained in the courts (something which I am yet to hear of about in a positive tone). And then also for the fact that the second generation reform of law education, which began with the setting up of a lone law-dedicated school at Bangalore, have also yet seen its logical end and require a major thrust of centralized planning in this field or else the numbers (with which the law schools are coming up in the country) would surely grow out of proportion and it the focus may shift from rising of professional standards to divergent paths, something which is already coming up with the law schools offering novel degrees and experimenting with the legal education all by themselves.

The next recommendation is ensuing a ‘rating system’ for institutions catering to legal education; a suggestion which I think might turn out to be meaningfully meaningless unless implemented in its spirit. Meaningless because without any such ratings being given by a governmental agency, the IITs and IIMs and the medical colleges in the country are already performing well and in fact have worked hard to achieve a prestige and reputation to earn the rating points they deserve and the same might not be forthcoming if there exists an agency to rate the institutions for it would rate even the undeserving ones and might even malfunction unlike rating by market forces which simply is based on strengths and prospects alone and not by influential contacts in an agency.

But then I am a personal fan of the Knowledge Commission not without a reason. The recommendations relating to ‘curriculum development’, ‘examination system’ and ‘measures to attract and retain talented faculty’ are few of those which are think are not only worthwhile but also the need of the hour for this profession which is facing change at a rapid pace. [In fact I had an occasion to write about the falling standards of teaching profession in India. click here for the post] Then there are other recommendations as well such as; catering to the need for ensuring proper insistence of research standards and creation of Centers for Advanced Legal Studies And Research (CALSAR); making arrangements with financial of legal education (which would really do a world of good to the law schools which are able to work at break-even alone because of the un-forthcoming donations and sponsorships); bringing a sense of internationalization in the way things take place; using technology for dissemination of legal education; etc. are also not just worth pondering over but to be given full effect to right from now.

I felt heartily well to have read the report. This reminded me the words of Prof. N.L. Mitra who spoke to us on our first day at law school (that being 15^th July, 2002) that what we had seen in our limited experience with law was set to change and change in a big way; with technology pioneering the way and an all-rounder and dedicated approach required for law, there was no place for mediocres in the profession. I am sure that his vision of legal profession in the country would be done a lot of good with the adoption and proper implementation of these recommendations.

Common Law Admission Test, finally

After much hype and fanfare, active indulgence of the Supreme Court, reluctance on the part of those officiating the law schools, and an expert committee within the Ministry of HRD, finally the Common Entrance Test has seen the light of the day.

It all started with a public interest litigation by an aggrieved student, who posed before the Supreme Court his inability to pay, prepare and sit for the entrance to the various law schools, each holding an entrance test for his own, while his counterparts in engineering, medicine and even management had just one single test to prepare for and appear to be eligible for admission in diverse colleges spread across India. When the Supreme Court sent a notice to the Government of India, the latter was all very ingratiating to mull over the possibility of a common entrance test and handed the matter to the Ministry for HRD to come out with a concrete plan for the same, which we have today at CLAT or Common Law Admission Test.

Even the dates for the first CLAT have been announced (May 11 this year) and now there is a full fledged website on the same [www.clat.ac.in], as The Hindu reports [click here for full report]. However on last try, the site was not accessible. Hope it does before the CLAT. It is nonetheless to be noted, only to the pity of the students appearing for the test, that despite the idea of centralized law admissions, CLAT does not offer the full picture as of now. Not every law school has acceded to the idea and as of now only seven law schools (but fortunately the best ones in the country) have subscribed to CLAT. These are;

1. National Law School of India University (Bangalore); [www.nls.ac.in]
2. NALSAR University of Law (Hyderabad); [www.nalsarlawuniv.ac.in]
3. National Law Institute University (Bhopal); [http://www.nliu.com/]
4. West Bengal National University of Juridicial Sciences (Kolkata); [http://www.nujs.edu/]
5. National Law University (Jodhpur); [http://www.nlujodhpur.ac.in/]
6. Hidayatullah National Law University (Raipur); [http://www.hnlu.ac.in/] and
7. Gujarat National Law University (Gandhinagar) [http://www.gnlu.ac.in/]

Very many law schools in the country would still be holding their own admission/entrance tests. But then it would be a far cry to look for a fully workable solution in the first year itself and I am sure gradually the admission to almost all law schools in India would either in or in association with CLAT. Some of the schools going ahead with CLAT this year itself have come out their versions of what they understand by CLAT and how the same would operate and its nice that they share the same vision. [See for example notification by NLU Jodhpur, NLSIU Bangalore]

But then again, it is not good news for all. It is only the students preparing for the undergraduate studies who would be benefited by CLAT for postgraduate, distance education, diploma courses etc. are out of the purview of CLAT and each law school would be holding a separate entrance for the same, which would imply that there does exist a wide range of divergence for the prospective students to these courses. Further, any decision to include such courses in the main stream CLAT does not seem imminent, given the wide differences in the course curriculum and reach of these programmes. Nonetheless CLAT is a good initative to start with, giving a common frame of reference and inter-twining the administration of the law schools of the country, something which has hitherto been missing. I hope this goes on to harbouring strategic partnerships between various law schools and give impetus to the improvement of legal education in the country, on the lines of the recommendations made by the National Knowledge Commission [click here for the full report of recommendations made by the National Knowledge Commission]



As for non-starters, I thought it would be better to provide a list of some law schools I am aware, which would be holding their own admission tests. A quick list (though not in any order of importance or otherwise) that I can come up with is as under;

1. Government Law College, Mumbai (http://www.glc.edu/)
2. Delhi University, Faculty of Law (website)
3. ILS, Pune (http://www.ilslaw.edu/)
4. Amity Law School (http://www.amity.edu/als/)
5. Symbiosis Law College (http://www.symlaw.ac.in/)
6. Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University
7. Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University (http://www.bhu.ac.in/law.htm)
8. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
9. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab (http://www.rgnulpatiala.org/)
10. Chanakya National Law University, Patna (http://www.cnlu.ac.in)