The following extract appears at pp. 94-97 of a report titled 'Suggestions for Reforms at the National Law Universities set up through State Legislations' which was submitted to the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India in March 2018. It was based on surveys conducted among faculty members (33 respondents) and students (849 respondents) at 15 participating institutions in August-September 2016. I was one of the authors of this report. We welcome any feedback.
Consolidation
of Postgraduate and Research Degrees
So
far, the NLUs have largely acquired reputational capital through
their undergraduate programmes. However, there is an urgent need to
improve the state of postgraduate programmes such as LL.M. and Ph.D.
These programmes are primarily meant to provide rigorous training for
those who are interested in pursuing teaching and research-oriented
careers. As discussed in the previous chapter, the transition towards
the one-year LL.M. programme had commenced during the academic year
2013-2014. This has led to a considerable increase in the number of
applicants who are appearing for the PG CLAT. On the face of it, this
increase can be attributed to the reduction of the length of the
master’s programme from two years to one academic year. The premise
is that a shorter duration reduces the opportunity costs for law
graduates who can otherwise opt for employment.
However,
interactions with a large cross-section of LL.M. students indicate
another reason for the substantial increase in the size of the
applicant pool over the last few years. The PG CLAT scores are being
used by several Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to shortlist
candidates for their recruitment cycles. So a large number of law
graduates are appearing for this entrance examination in the hope of
securing public employment. This is evidenced by the fact that the PG
CLAT ranks obtained by the students who are actually joining the
LL.M. programmes at specific institutions appear to have dropped
considerably. In comparison to the much larger Central and State
Universities where gaining admission to postgraduate programmes is
far more difficult than entering undergraduate programmes, the
NLUs have evolved into an anomalous situation where it is
comparatively much easier to secure admissions in the master’s
programmes.
There
is also an evident mismatch between the expectations of most LL.M.
applicants and the institutional objectives behind offering these
programmes. Those who do gain admission to the better known NLUs
assume that these programmes will enhance their chances of securing
lucrative employment opportunities with commercial law firms and
leading business houses. However, it is only after commencing their
postgraduate studies at these institutions that they begin to
comprehend the largely academic orientation of the programme. As
mentioned earlier, the applicable UGC guidelines contemplate the
completion of three mandatory subjects, six optional subjects and a
dissertation within one academic year. A large section of incoming
LL.M. students may not have previously faced the intensive research
and writing requirements that are the norm in these highly selective
institutions. There also tends to be inadequate exposure to the
fundamentals of doctrinal legal research and the interface between
law and other disciplines. This leads to difficulties in coping with
the prescribed coursework requirements.
On
the supply-side, many of the NLUs are struggling to attract
experienced teachers at the level of Professor and Associate
Professor who can provide meaningful research supervision across a
range of thematic specialisations. In such a scenario, recently
recruited Assistant Professors are being assigned as research
supervisors for postgraduate students. This is not a desirable
practice when many of the Assistant Professors themselves may not
have completed substantive research work such as a doctoral thesis or
contributions to credible peer-reviewed journals. If we go by the
explicit guidance provided by the UGC Regulations for offering the
one-year LL.M. programme, each institution should devote the services
of at least 10 experienced faculty members (at the level of Associate
Professor and above) for the purpose of teaching and research
supervision in postgraduate courses. This pool of relatively
experienced teachers is supposed to form a Centre for Postgraduate
Legal Education (CPGLE) at each institution that is offering the
LL.M. and Ph.D. programmes.
Another
layer of difficulties arises from discriminatory behaviour by
students enrolled in the five-year integrated programmes who tend to
dominate student affairs in these residential campuses owing to their
larger numbers and longer duration of study. It is also conceivable
that several teachers might be taking advantage of the lesser
bargaining power of LL.M. students by not delivering the intensive
teaching and evaluation standards that are expected from them. In
such circumstances, competing with postgraduate programmes at
well-known foreign universities is likely to remain a distant dream.
This
rather sorry state of affairs can be rectified through some concrete
steps. The NLUs can consider introducing separate tracks for the
LL.M. programmes, namely a ‘taught’ track and a ‘research’
track. The admissions for the ‘taught’ programme can continue to
be conducted through the PG CLAT which consists of multiple-choice
questions. The coursework can largely consist of lecture-based
courses that are assessed through written examinations, with minimal
requirements for producing research papers. There should of course be
efforts made to expand the range of optional courses being offered to
the students, both in terms of disseminating specialized knowledge
and improving their professional prospects. In contrast, admissions
to the ‘research’ track should be separately conducted by the
respective NLUs. This is because each institution is a better judge
of how many research-oriented students it can handle, given the
relative scarcity of experienced faculty members who can provide
meaningful research supervision. The admissions for such a ‘research’
track should ideally be conducted through a written examination that
tests applicants for their capacity for theory-building, careful
argumentation and analytical writing. Assessing these skills is not
really possible through an entrance exam such as the PG CLAT which
only consists of multiple-choice questions. Weightage can also be
given for writing samples and academic performance during
undergraduate programmes. While this process may appear to be
subjective, it is likely to be a far better filter for identifying
students who are capable of pursuing intensive research. The NLUs
should not view the fees paid by LL.M. students as an importance
source of revenue and they should be prepared to limit the intake for
these programmes based on the existing faculty strength. The global
practice is that the aggregate intake for a postgraduate programme
should ideally not exceed one-third of the intake prescribed for
undergraduate programmes in the same field of study.
If
we turn our attention towards research-based degrees, most of our
faculty-respondents lamented that a vast majority of Ph.D. candidates
enrolled at their respective institutions had opted for the
‘part-time’ route. Correspondingly, there tend to be very few
candidates pursuing doctoral studies on a full-time basis at the
NLUs. The foremost reason for such disparity is the significant
opportunity costs that would be incurred by those who opt for the
full-time route after having completed professional qualifications. A
prospective doctoral student in this field has to consider foregoing
income-earning opportunities that are available in legal practice and
other career-paths. Hence, the ‘part-time’ route tends to be
preferred by those who are already working, especially those who are
in the early years of a teaching career and see the completion of a
Ph.D. as a necessary step for their career advancement. (With the
rapid rise in the number of law schools in India and the consequent
expansion of teaching positions, an overwhelming majority of the
Ph.D. candidates who are presently enrolled with the NLUs are already
in teaching positions). There
are of course some individuals engaged in professional pursuits such
as courtroom practice, the corporate legal sector and in voluntary
sector organisations to name a few, who would be pursuing doctoral
studies with different objectives in mind.
For
those who are inclined to pursue Ph.D. programmes on a full-time
basis, there are limited avenues for funding during the course of
study. The Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) awarded by the University
Grants Commission is limited to a small number of eligible applicants
in each academic year. While doctoral fellowships are available
through the Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR),
applicants need to effectively compete with a larger pool of
applicants from several disciplines. Even though these funding
avenues are available, the extent of funding can prove to be quite
inadequate when compared with the loss of potential earnings from
professional pursuits. There are few Indian Universities that offer
their own fellowships for pursuing a Ph.D. programme in Law. (For
instance, NALSAR has started offering an integrated LL.M.-Ph.D.
programme from the academic year 2017-2018 which offers monetary
support to pursue full-time research for a maximum period of four
years. However, it is too early to judge whether this programme will
yield a high quality of scholarly publications.) This is in sharp
contrast to the position at some foreign universities which have
acquired a reputation for a serious commitment to research by
providing fellowships to their doctoral students across disciplines.
Many of the NLUs are using an intermediate method for supporting
their Ph.D. candidates by recruiting them as ‘Research Associates’
for sponsored research projects or as ‘Teaching Assistants’ who
help in the delivery of undergraduate teaching.
Suggested Readings:
1. Sudhir
Krishnaswamy & Dharmendra Chatur, ‘Recasting the LL.M.: Course
Design and Pedagogy’, 9(1) Socio-Legal
Review 101-120 (2013).
2. Badrinath Srinivasan, ‘LL.M. in India: A Critical Review’,
Proceedings of the National Conference on Contemporary Legal
Education in the Globalized World, Central Law College, Salem
[Available through Social
Science Research Network (SSRN),
September 2017].