To go from mediocrity to excellence
N.R. Madhava Menon IN THE HINDU
The challenges before legal education reform in India are many. |
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.
(Professor N.R. Madhava Menon is founder-director of the National Law School of India in Bangalore, the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata and the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal.)
http://www.hindu.com/2010/06/18/stories/2010061853121200.htm
PM’s Inaugural Address at the Conference of National Consultation for Second Generation Reforms in Legal Education
The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, inaugurated the Conference of National Consultation for Second Generation Reforms in Legal Education in New Delhi today. Following is the text of the Prime Minister’s address on the occasion:
“I am very happy to be in your midst today in this national conference dealing with reforms in legal education system. The importance of your conference cannot be over emphasized. If we are to have a society as we must be where the common man and common woman gets speedy and affordable access to justice, if we are to have in our country the turbulence in effect of the Rule of Law, if we are to have an economic environment where contracts are easily enforceable, then we must ensure that our law teachers, practicing advocates, corporate legal luminaries, legal advisors, judicial officers and legal facilitators are indeed men and women of very high intellectual caliber. And this is possible only if there is dramatic reform and improvement in the scope and quality of our legal education system. I therefore congratulate my colleague the Law Minister and his team for organizing this important conference as a part of the initiative to improve the legal education system in our country.
Over half a century ago, the then President of India, Dr. Radhakrishnan stated– and he himself was a great teacher—lamented that “our colleges of law do not hold a place of high esteem either at home or abroad, nor has law become an area of profound scholarship and enlightened research”. It’s no doubt we have travelled a long distance since that time. But we must admit and have to ask honestly ourselves whether we have significantly altered the landscape of our legal education system. We do have a small number of dynamic and outstanding law schools, but I am afraid they remain islands of excellence amidst a sea of institutionalized mediocrity. We are not even marginally nearer to profound scholarship and enlightened research in law. As we and we must introspect honestly, we must sadly accept that Dr Radhakrishnan’s powerful yet poignant words may not be amenable to any radical restatement even today.
I believe your deliberations in this conference should be tempered with the realization that most of the problems as also the panaceas in the field of legal education are well known. There is a wealth of literature and ideas already available on the subject, including studies by the Law Commission, the recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission, the report of the Bar Council and learned articles by academics. Not any less important is the valuable experience of eminent and experienced practitioners who have tried and tested abstract legal propositions in real life situations. We need to focus on utilizing these rich, vast and diverse resources for imparting legal education in our country.
Reforming and improving our legal education system to meet the needs of our growing economy and a knowledge society that we wish to become requires action on many fronts. There is the issue of making our legal curricula multidisciplinary, creative and flexible. It is only relatively recently that areas like ethics in the judicial profession, clinical legal education, alternative dispute resolution, rights of refugees, rights of prisoners and women and child rights, are being given their legitimate due in the legal curriculum. There is an urgent need to integrate these and other areas into a national, uniform course module with fewer exceptions and fewer divergences.
There is also the serious problem of law teachers – a vexed problem of numbers, quality and diversity. We need good law teachers to shape and nurture young legal minds. The sad reality is that when we look for experts to head new law schools and the new faculties, we have precious few to choose from. There is an obvious need to provide more uniform but calibrated and better salaries, accompanied by considerably improved terms of service for our teachers.
Our law libraries are too few and woefully stocked. We must provide the latest tools of research to our students, scholars and practitioners. Law schools should be linked with the best sources of knowledge globally.
Internship and post degree placements must also be regulated to match applicants and recipients appropriately. Today, some fortunate students who have the right contacts have the luxury of plenty in terms of options while several of their talented but less resourceful colleagues go a begging for placements.
We must dream if we want to make progress of having a world class educational system. Law universities should be a part of our national ambition. I have a vision that the new South Asian University soon to be established by this Government with other South Asian countries would ultimately expand to include an outstanding law faculty with an eminent global faculty. Our new five year Law Schools across India have shown that we are second to none when we make up our mind but we have to spread this excellence for ensuring inclusive legal education.
Our legal education system should be particularly sensitive to the needs of the marginalized sections of our society like women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the poor. Not only should these sections of society be adequately represented among law students, the legal education we impart should inculcate sensitivity towards the special needs of the under-privileged sections of our community.
One expects even experienced and established legal luminaries, judges and other law professionals to submit to periodic and continuing legal education programmes without standing on pomp or seniority. After all, this is common place in other advanced countries of the world. There are revolutionary changes taking place in information systems, communications and technology which require corresponding changes in our legal system. Highly specialized areas of law such as intellectual property law, corporate law, cyber law, cyber crimes, human rights law and international commercial law require specialized training and skills that should be imparted by our law schools. The opening of trade and capital markets as a result of the processes of globalization and the retreat of the State from some of its traditional roles have raised new legal issues concerning the way in which the poor and marginalized sections can protect themselves from the adverse effects of these changes. The very nature of law, of legal institutions and the practice of law are in the throes of a paradigm shift.
One of the most challenging tasks in legal education in India is to strike a proper balance to ensure that our students are taught a fair mix of courses that give them knowledge and training in Indian law, but at the same time prepare them for facing the challenges of globalization, where domestic legal mechanisms interact with both international and foreign legal systems. This interaction is going to deepen in the years to come and our law schools must prepare themselves to face this challenge. Let me conclude by wishing the deliberations of this conference all success. I sincerely hope the conference will result in actionable agenda and recommendations to improve the legal education system in our country. I also wish all of you the very best in your professional and personal lives.”
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=61265
Call for Papers – CONSILIENCE – ANNUAL CONFERENCE ORGANISED BY THE LAW AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE OF THE STUDENT BAR ASSOCIATION- NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL BANGALORE
Consilience is an annual conference organised by the Law and Technology Committee of the Student Bar Association, at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, India. It is devoted to the field of technology law and has sought to inspire academic debates and tackle contentious issues of contemporary relevance. Past editions of the conference have brought together luminaries like Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia (Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission), Mr. R. Ramraj (MD and CEO, Sify Technologies Ltd.,), Mr. Richard Stallman (Founder – GNU Project), Hon’ble Justice Yatindra Singh (Allahabad High Court, India), Mr. Rahul Matthan (Partner, Trilegal ) and have discussed issues relating to “Legal Aspects of Business Process Outsourcing”, “Biotechnology and the Law” and “Free and Open Source Software”.
This year, the Law and Technology Committee in association with the Centre for Internet and Society would be organizing Consilience-2010 with the topic for discussion as “Internet Intermediary Liability in India”. This year’s edition of Consilience seeks to not only bring leading academicians to debate upon the topic of contention but also looks to increase and encourage student participation.
In this regard, we invite abstracts related to the topic tracks of discussion as enumerated in the concept note. The abstracts must be roughly 500 words and should clearly identify the issue they are dealing with, and the argument that they seek to put forward and should strictly conform to the guidelines below. The abstracts must be footnoted and the conference follows a very strict policy on plagiarism and runs all submissions through plagiarism detection software. Selected abstracts will be notified on January 25th and the authors are required to submit a final paper by March 5th. Authors are required to note that the organizers reserve the right to reject the final paper even after acceptance of the abstract if it is felt that the final paper is unsuitable to be presented, being off topic, too different from the abstract, containing plagiarized material, of low quality or any other such reason. Only submissions made through our webstie will be accepted.
Pls Visit : www.consilience.in
Start here to submit a paper to this conference.
Step one of the submission process
How to . . . improve your drafting
From Times Online
March 3, 2008
The written side of litigation may not be as glamorous but it’s where much of the war is fought, says Catherine Newman, QC
Catherine Newman, barrister
Interview by Alex Aldridge
Become a better lawyer: running a case, doing a deal, moving in-house and other tips from the top
Some people love to seem so clever. When I was younger I used to think that I was too stupid to understand those documents where you have to read a paragraph several times in order to understand it. But gradually I realised that the problem was that some people simply have a drafting style that is far too complex. Look at the speeches of the great House of Lords judges of our day: beautifully written but in plain, clear English.
Ambiguity is what gets lawyers into trouble. When writing a formal opinion one is able to think about exactly how to phrase something. But with advice increasingly being given more casually, there’s much greater scope for confusion to creep in. The immediacy of email means there’s an awful temptation to dispense with the polishing stage — and in litigation a little bit of polishing can make a huge difference.
Try not to make your missives too stinging. Many moons ago I was asked to draft an opinion explaining to a country solicitor why a client couldn’t extract money from a company that the court had ordered her to hand over to the other side. Of course, it was glaringly obvious that such a course of action would have been completely improper and likely to result in further litigation. Being very young, I may well have used that term “improper”. I certainly didn’t pull my punches. The response, a copy of which I still have to this day, begins: “I have received a stinging missive from Miss Chariots of Fire, who is fortunate that she does not have to make a living by the exercise of personal charm . . .”
Gradually you learn to code your language in more outwardly acceptable terms. A Chancery favourite is “utterly misconceived.” I use that a lot. Or, “We’re finding it rather difficult to understand the point you’re making.” If you receive that one, you can be sure that the other side thinks you’re talking complete bollocks.
A large part of the war occurs in the correspondence. I give the same level of consideration to drafting letters to the other side as I do to writing formal opinions. “Dear Judge” letters, I call them, because even if they’re written before litigation has commenced, they should always be drafted with the eyes of the judge in mind. They’re your opportunity to show not only that your client has behaved reasonably and sensibly from the beginning, but — and this is crucial for getting your costs if you win — that you’ve grasped the essential legal issues early on and have stuck to them.
Develop a flexible, anonymous style. If people spot your hand in the drafting, they may use it against you. There was an arbitration where we were against a solicitor based in Kazakhstan, who wrote the most mind-bogglingly rude letters — always unwise as judges hate correspondence that unnecessarily raises the temperature. This guy’s downfall was his inability to resist using certain pet phrases over and again. His client would never go to a meeting; he’d go to “a high level meeting with senior personnel” — that sort of stuff. It didn’t take long to spot the documents in which he’d had a hand.
Do your best to assist the court. Sitting part-time as a judge in Guernsey and as a recorder in the Crown Court, I’m well aware that case files often arrive on a judge’s desk at 4.15 in the afternoon on the day before a hearing begins. I always try to provide a thumbnail picture of my client’s arguments early on in my skeleton argument, just in case whoever is trying the case hasn’t managed to plough through everything I’ve written.
Other barristers are rather more cynical. I certainly know of two or three members of the profession who, when they don’t have a strong case, deliberately obfuscate by making their skeletons as long-winded and confusing as possible in the hope that the judge won’t have time to untangle the various arguments.
The written aspect of the job may not be as glamorous as the oral side of things. But it’s something that we commercial barristers take enormous pride in. I remember being asked as a very junior barrister to prepare a note on a particular section of an act of parliament that the court was construing. To my absolute delight, Lord Hoffmann (then a first instance judge), included a very brief acknowledgment of my “helpful” note in his judgment. Now that was real praise.
Catherine Newman, QC, is a barrister at Maitland Chambers
leave a comment