First GNLU Review Commission Report – Calls for establishing Student Bar Association, other “grievances redressal mechanisms”

The findings of the first Review Commission (Commission) constituted to examine the working of the Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (GNLU) since the University’s inception, have recently been made available online. The Commission, which was chaired by Prof. NR Madhava Menon, had Prof. HC Dholakia and Prof. Bakul Dholakia as its members..As per the report (a copy of which was provided by StrippedLaw), the Commission initially proceeded to “interact with all the stakeholders involved with GNLU”, a process which involved speaking to the faculty, administrative staff, and students of GNLU. Curiously, the Chief Justice of Gujarat “declined” to meet with the Commission, while members of the Bar Council were “not available” for the days on which the Commission conducted its meetings. In all, the Commission had three sittings spread across five days from August 2012 to January 2013..Of the various conclusions reached by the Commission, one of the more interesting ones relates to the process for appointing GNLU’s Director. As per Regulation 8 of the GNLU Act, a Search Committee recommends three names to GNLU’s Executive Council for the post of Director. The Executive Council then submits its recommendations to the General Council However a sub-clause in this Regulation allows for the Executive Council to suggest an individual irrespective of the findings of the Search Committee. The Commission notes that,.“This clause (4), in effect, nullifies the recommendations of the Search Committee and tends to defeat the very purpose of a search by an expert group. Further it provides for the appointment of a person whose name may not have been found fit by the Search Committee, or even rejected by the Search Committee. This provision – Clause (4) – in fact, makes a mockery of the provision for a Search Committee. The Commission is of the view that the Government needs to review the provision in the best interests of the institution.”.The Commission also notes the need to appoint a “regular whole time Registrar” rather than continue with the process of appointing an “officiating Registrar” from the University’s faculty. The Commission also rued the lack of Professors, especially with respect to the fact the University’s several Committees are headed by Associate or Assistant Professors. The report states,.“Many of these committees deal with important academic matters where junior staff members lacking experience of taking decisions manage the affairs just to keep things functioning. This is a sad situation which needs correction.”.When it comes to addressing student grievances, the Commission has sought the establishment of an “effective grievances redressal mechanism” as well as the constitution of a Students Bar Association, and a Faculty Consultative Council..This Faculty Consultative Council is required since, as per the Commission, .“[The Faculty] seem to be aggrieved of academic decisions being taken unilaterally without consultation, seminars being organized without an institutional purpose, non-academic activities being imposed without consultation and grievances are not promptly and properly addressed to create a conducive environment for collectively taking the university forward.”.With respect to the question of imposing discipline, the Commission observes:.“Fine, suspension, expulsion etc. are to be reserved for extreme situations which seldom happens in an elite law school aspiring world class status. Commanding attendance in class under threat of detention does not speak well of the quality of teaching. A world class university should be able to dispense with attendance requirement in course of time by motivating everyone voluntarily to participate in learning.”.For raising the level of faculty, the Commission recommends the introduction of a Diploma in Teaching and Research, a course that all Teaching Assistants must complete before being appointed as Assistant Professors. Reasons the Commission,.“The dual assignment of having to do a Diploma before appointment as an Assistant Professor and having to teach, do research and assist in law school administration under supervision give them both an opportunity to learn good teaching requirements (not available elsewhere) and to show their potential to deserve a regular teaching assignment. … This strategy is recommended for GNLU because of some complaints received by the Commission on the quality of teaching in few subjects. No university can hope to attain world class status even if a minority of its faculty is not able to deliver to relatively talented students.”.The Commission has not limited its findings to these aspects though; it has also examined the introduction of courses such as a BSc. LLB degree, GNLU’s efforts to reach out to other law schools in Gujarat, as well as a certain amount of “simmering discontent” amongst the faculty and the student body that needs to be addressed on an urgent basis. GNLU’s Director, Dr. Bimal Patel did not respond to emailed queries..Undoubtedly, the problems highlighted in the report are not faced by GNLU alone. Maintaining student discipline, raising faculty standards, and effective communication between the administration and the faculty are problems that have cropped up across various law schools in the country. What will be interesting to see is how GNLU, and other law schools, respond. .(A copy of the report may also be read here)