Barely a month after allegations of sexual harassment surfaced at Nalsar, the institution finds itself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons once again.

A four member committee headed by former Supreme Court judge, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri was appointed by former Chief Justice of the AP High Court, Nisar Ahmed Kakru to investigate complaints filed by Nalsar students and faculty members. The committee has tabled a report highlighting the administrative mismanagement and suggesting a complete overhaul of the management.at one of the country's leading law schools. 

The report had been tabled as far back as September 2011 and has come down heavily on the top members of the Nalsar administration. The report has, inter alia, raised various questions with regard to the manner in which Nalsar functioned and has also cited several examples which reflect a gross abuse of power. As reported  by the Times of India:

“The committee.................. after a thorough examination of the records, detailed interactions with faculty and students, found that unbridled concentration of power in the hands of vice chancellor, favouritism, abuse of authority, gross academic indiscipline, and financial irregularities were jeopardizing the founding objective of the university.”

N.R Madhavan Menon, the man credited with the successful establishment of NLU's in the country told Bar & Bench that, “Every organ of governance of a university, be it Faculty Council or Student Association [etc], are the internal governing structures. And if they are not exercising their power of superintendence and correction over the internal administration, it is a failure [on their part]”.

He goes on to say that, “Autonomy is not for the Vice Chancellor; autonomy is for the university as an institution, where everybody has a separate role. Like a government has a legislature, executive and judiciary, such a division of power is there within a university as in the academic council, the executive council [etc]......They have to exercise the power at an appropriate time [and] not only when something breaks down and a scam arises.”

Speaking to Bar & Bench, Prof. M. P. Singh, who was part of the search committee that suggested Prof. Veer Singh to be appointed as the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor said,"The search committee could look into the past record and make a projection on that basis for the future but it could not envisage or monitor every details of every activity that a VC may have to undertake during the course of his/her office. Nor can any further stringency in the selection or appointment process of VC make much difference. As I am not aware of the facts of the matter, it is inadvisable for me to make any comments on the basis of media reports. By nature I have internalised the legal principle that every person is innocent unless proved otherwise." 

He further says, "I am unsure on the autonomy of the VC, but I am sure of the autonomy of the universities in matters of education. The universities must have maximum possible autonomy in matters of education."

Shamnad Basheer, Ministry of HRD Chair Professor for IP at NUJS, also spoke to Bar & Bench. While declining to comment on the committee report specifically, he did say that “... what I can do is to reflect on the larger institutional issue of decision making within the NLU’s. The national law schools are extremely fragile institutions, in that their health depends significantly, if not exclusively on the whim and fancy of one person sitting right on top wearing the robe of the Vice Chancellor. “

“Contrast this,” he continues, “with the best global law schools where the role of the Dean (Vice Chancellor) is more circumscribed. The faculty is the highest decision making body which collectively deliberates on all important policy issues (taking adequate inputs from representatives of the student body and the  administration) and is vested with the power to even veto the Vice Chancellor.”

Basheer goes on to say that, “Apart from the fact that wide unilateral powers are often vested in a Vice Chancellor, the other key issue is that of the Executive Council (the highest policy making body of most NLU’s) being dominated by judges and government officials. Our judges are wise, but often not well placed to unilaterally dictate the policy choices of a law school, given that many of them have never taught in a full time capacity at a law school to appreciate the real essence of legal education.  It is akin to a law professor making policy decisions relating to courts and case management (as opposed to merely serving as a consultant and offering suggestions).”

The scathing report of the committee no doubt raises several pertinent questions in relation to the manner in which Nalsar has been run. At the same time, this also may be an opportunity for the administration of NLU's to introspect and decide whether there are some fundamental errors in their very structure itself. Perhaps what is at stake is not only the fate of a particular institution but rather the fate of law schools across the country.