Have you ever wondered which Law School subject you are? Does your personality scream the razor-sharp calculated yet suave ways of Eco-I or the rigour and righteousness of Consti? Take Quirk’s BuzzFeed quiz to find out.

Don’t forget to tag us on our social media if you share the results!

[Image Description: The doodle is in the form of a large hand with its middle finger raised to the third trimester. Above the hand are the words “IIIrd trim” and at the bottom is “2024” with an infinity symbol drawn over the 4. Inside the hand are various terms we’ve heard quite frequently this trim – “quarantine”, “protest?”, “rigour”, “mental health”, “usual suspects”, “ED/BT”, “examination guidelines”, “teacher autonomy”, “summary”, “more power 2 u”, “AASP”, “pedagogy”, “LMS”, “attendance (shortage)”, “cold call”, “falling academic standards”, “SBA”, “alienation”, “NIRF #1”, “Zoom”, “mic not working”, “creep”, “cohort”, “25 pages”, “online”, and “Raghav, note their names”. There are smaller doodles within the hand, such as a skull and crossbones with the word “field” written over it, flowers, coffee, emails, and the Whatsapp symbol.]

“The hostel bathroom smells better”, laments student

January 17, 2020 | Aman Vasavada

Several reports of the putrid stench of bird poop in the areas surrounding the academic block of Nagarbhavi Laa School have finally prompted the administration to take action. This morning, NLS authorities declared the region as the Acad Exclusion Region (“AER”), cordoning off the academic block and its surrounding regions with leftover SF barricades to prevent inmates from any accidental exposure the noxious fumes. The birds have been identified as egrets and they have been already been struck off the NRC. Efforts are underway in the AER to capture them, book them for Swachh Bharat violations, and send them to the new detention centre near Bangalore. The white carpet of egret poop has reportedly destroyed local ecosystems, killed all the grass around the acad, and forced the departure of some professors from NLS to greener pastures, literally.

Scientists from the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research [yes, that thing opposite Gate 2 – open your eyes] inspected the AER earlier today with dosimeters and recorded radiation levels of 4000 roentgens per hour. This makes it the smelliest disaster in human history since the Great Stink of London in 1858, surpassing even the Mexican Wave Incident of 2016 where 10 third years came for evening class after a Taco Bell lunch and let it rip simultaneously during attendance to conceal voice-changes in proxies.

NLS Inmates Review is still investigating why these egrets have shifted base from the bridge behind Narmada to the Acad Block region, and why their numbers have skyrocketed to putrefying levels. The Environment Group blames climate change for the migration. That angry WHOR resident who routinely sends “Loud Music: Please Shut Up” mails is convinced that the effective ban on quad parties has led to a rise in room parties in WHOR, prompting the disturbed birds to move to the quieter acad treetops.

Conspiracists claim it is an inside job, orchestrated by the administration in furtherance of their restrictive acad policies. They believe that the bird excretion overdose was an excuse to declare the acad as the AER and barricade it completely from the inmates. Our Asia-Pacific correspondent Jyotsna Vilva cites the Singapore model of converting poop to electricity, hailing this shitshow as a possible first step in yet another cost-cutting electricity policy. Another faction points to the abnormal spike in the stench levels this weekend, suggesting that it is a deliberate move to block out NALSAR and NUJS trilateral visitors from entering our acad and discovering our trophy-less acad walls.

LawSoc perceives larger forces at play. A member commented: “First they came for the acad. Next they’ll come for the library. Then they’ll come for the hostels. Finally, they’ll come for you. Wake up. Just like the pigeons sitting on the CCTV cameras in the acad, these birds are government agents. They’re clandestinely clamping down on dissent by blocking off our common spaces, disrupting our protests and distracting us from the larger issues plaguing the nation. Section 144 didn’t stop us so they sent 144 egrets instead!” Our USA correspondent V Sreedharan reports that this could be a US Air Force exercise in preparation for World War III, testing the carpet-bombing strategies of its new, nuclear-capable birds.

However, there is a bright side to this repulsive whitewashing. Attendance marks have been cancelled with immediate effect, due to the inaccessibility of the AER. Funds are being diverted from FAP corpus towards finally completing construction of the new acad. SNHP too is cashing in on this crisis, making it a case study for the next APPC, themed “Expelling Egrets without Regrets: Best Practices”. Australia is sending specialists to study the possibility of using egret carpet-bombing to douse bushfires. Inmates also wanted Australia to send OzzyMan to campus to review the tragedy, but NLS did not want to pay for his flight tickets.

At the time of publishing this, the casualties of this olfactory apocalypse stand at 2 puppies, 1 acre of grass, the will to live of about 348 students and counting. Quirk is distributing pollution masks tomorrow on a need-based policy. Priority will be given to non-Delhi inmates who are not adapted to surviving toxic AQI levels.

Solidarity Statement against Police Brutality at Jamia Millia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University

We, the students of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru vehemently and unequivocally condemn the violence perpetrated against the peaceful protests organized by students of Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Millia Islamia, and in other universities across the nation. The brutality of the state is evident in its response to these protests: the police has entered into campuses without authorisation, used tear-gas shells, violently lathi-charged and even fired live bullet rounds on students. These moves, apart from being a clear violation of universally accepted human rights, are also an assault on the rule of law, morality and the democratic ethos and tradition that is fundamental to dignified living. We believe that this move is intended to bring about a chilling effect on freedom of speech and to curb dissent.

As students of law, we wholly and unequivocally condemn these lawless actions and the disproportionate use of force by the state on vulnerable students across the country. Therefore, we beseech the judiciary to take due cognizance of the same and ensure that the necessary accountability is fixed.

Additionally, we also believe that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is completely against the foundational values that the Constitution of India is built upon, and which we so cherish. The act is discriminatory, devoid of any reasonable classification, and at its base uses religion as the basis for granting citizenship. In its form and design, it is clear that the law is intended to directly target inter alia the Muslim minority community and is a classic example of a brute majoritarian preference aggregation impinging on the secular fabric that is woven into our founding document. We do not support this legislation, and call upon influential members of the legal fraternity, both on the bar and on the bench to join us in rejecting this morally bankrupt law.

We, the students of National Law School of India University, stand together, ‘arm in arm and hand in hand’ with concerned students and citizens during this extremely crucial yet difficult time for our democratic republic in rejecting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

Mallika Sen, Smriti Kalra, Jyotsna Vilva (Batch of 2021), Jwalika Balaji and Lakshmi Nambiar (Batch of 2023) interviewed Sachin Malhan (Batch of 2002), Sarayu Natarajan (Batch of 2006), Tanmay Amar (Batch of 2006), Vikas NM (Batch of 2008) and Srijoni Sen (Batch of 2009), all alumni of Law School, to gain some insight into dissent in their times and the student-faculty-admin relations. They were a few of the many alumni who came down to Law School to sit with the students during the recent protests, which is when the Quirk team got an opportunity to interview them. All opinions expressed are their own.

Q: What sort of issues did you have with the administration and the exam department during your time in law school?

A1: It’s been a while (laughs). There were smaller issues in terms of people facing academic consequences or just the level of freedom that you had on campus, and there was often a back and forth between the students and the faculty regarding these. I remember coming in, in my first year, and immediately being very impressed by the way students collectively spoke to faculty. But we also got the sense that beyond a level, it wasn’t really participatory, even though it affected students’ lives very much. Even at that time, the Executive Council’s decisions were very opaque – maybe it’s okay for students not to have a voice there, but even knowledge about how critical decisions were made about the University – that free information sharing was not there – and you guys are doing a great job of at least making that transparency come into the picture.

A2: I mean we all hated the exam department – but that’s natural resentment right. If they aren’t hated, they aren’t doing their job. Denial of project exemptions that were valid under the UGC Rules was always an issue. There were often battles but it was at the level of individual batches. We had issues with the quality of professors. We gave bad reviews but it’s hard to say if they were taken seriously. So we found solutions outside the system – we got a student’s dad to teach us tax.

Q: How were conflicts resolved? How did the student body handle it?

A: Dialogue. It has always been a very democratic process, especially when it was a collective issue that people faced. One of the great things about this campus is that it has quite a popular President and Vice-President chosen by the student body – it’s not factionalized, it’s not divided up into camps. We trust them to speak and there are always legendary GBMs, of course. If issues were not so big, it would be routed through the President, Vice-president or Class Representatives. There has always been that spirit of dialogue and negotiation, but it was only up to a point.

Q: How successful were these dialogues?

A: With the smaller things, yes, they were quite successful. When it came to things like drugs on campus or disciplinary issues, I do think we had a good thing going in terms of the faculty and administration trusting students to work it out themselves. There was a lot of trust placed on matters like that. Even with individual academic issues, they listened. When it came to things that were much bigger, usually you wouldn’t get your way.

Q: Was there a lot of dialogue between students-faculty-admin or was it only among the students or among the faculty? Was there cross-dialogue?

A: There was a decent amount of dialogue. Resolution is a different matter but dialogue was pretty much up and running. It is actually the same set of people as today, because it is a small community and the same teachers are there for a very long time. I would say that things have not really changed that much. There is a degree of freedom and a degree to which you are invited to have a seat at the table and talk. But if things are very critical in the way that they see it, beyond that, it became much harder to influence them and then perhaps it becomes necessary to go to the length that you guys are going.

Q: What was generally the way in which law school dissented and protested in your time?

A1: I think it was kind of like this, but smaller. 19(1)(a) has always been the flashpoint for things. What was different was that it was much harder to get word out. Not just media or social media, but there weren’t any publications that kept a close eye on law school. What happened on campus stayed on campus. You would hear about it days later saying something has happened. Word gets out much faster (nowadays), which has good and bad consequences. The good thing is that you can mobilize a lot more people but the bad thing is that it’s hard to get one clear answer – different people say different things, you don’t exactly know what’s going on, there’s no substitute to being here in person, which is why when someone says that we’ll take care of it outside, it’s really difficult because they’re not in it the same way.

A2: Professor Devidas, when he came in, he sort of lost his marbles. For 10 days, he taught us a 2-page article that he had himself written. So, we as a class protested against him teaching us. We all stood in protest front of the VC Office and it was resolved – Aditya Sondhi came and took that course. Barring this isolated incident, there was nothing of the magnitude we are seeing now. There was a black-band protest against Professor Mohan Gopal when he was the Director. We all stood with black-bands and Professor Mohan Gopal himself stepped down. But it was not for a procedural violation as we see now – it seemed to have a broader socio-political basis.

Q. Were students recognized as stakeholders at all times?

A: The fact that Mohan Gopal left in 2001-2002 because of the protest is a sign of that. There was also a change of rules with 50 instead of 40 becoming the passing mark. C and C+ was removed as a grade and class participation marks were introduced. He had this small council to help him make decisions – it consisted of the top rankers of the batches who would override the democratically elected class representatives (they along with rest of the batch also hated this but were picked by the VC, so they had to do it).

The Law School that is described by our alumni is one where speech and dialogue seemed to have been the foundation of the relationship between the students, the faculty and the admin. We must reflect upon what version of Law School we would like to envision and create for ourselves and how best we can achieve it. We are a small community, yet we are so diverse. How we express ourselves and how we re-establish student-faculty-administration relations to realize the Law School that we would want to proudly call our own is a question we all must seek to answer. 

Special Correspondent,

NLS Inmates Review

This news bulletin is dedicated to all those souls who have died slow deaths with
each new offering mail, and each new update on the spreadsheet.

Disclaimer/Warning

Any resemblance to any person, living or dead or a victim to the repeated offerings, is purely coincidental. All of the content in this bulletin is purely factual and unrelated to any goings on at Nagarbhavi Laa College. The NLS Inmates Review Team, however, warns all its readers to avoid playing, “Main tera mooter, tu meri mooter, oh mainu kehandi na na na na” with anyone in the near future due to the risk of creating another iteration of the offerings.

 

A weapons-grade, malignant virus known as JUMPSHIP made its way into the MCS Servers in the wee hours of 14th of October as they set about compiling final scores. The virus has since manifested in the MootMatrix multiple times apparently attaching to one of R1 to R11 and snaking its way to wherever such R might be.

MCS has since been adequately apprised of the problem, by the computer program itself (as shown in the crop of the code) as well as well-known MootMatrix professionals. The JUMPSHIP, although earlier taken only as an annoyance, has bought to light deficiencies in the MootMatrix code.

While attempting to try Troubleshoot #1, MCS realised that the anti-virus rules were non-existent and hence, iterations of the MootMatrix could be infiltrated by any virus at any time. This comes as no shock as the MootMatrix is a code created by lawyers who, obviously, cannot be expected to lay down concrete, written rules for coding or troubleshooting the MootMatrix.

 Troubleshoot #2 was attempted by MCS, which was successful for a little while before JUMPSHIP made an appearance again. As it turns out, the AI inside JUMPSHIP is much more advanced than initially perceived and shall continue its dance.

As MCS currently attempts to fix and appease JUMPSHIP to stop doing what it does best, here are a few real-life testimonials of the people who were affected by JUMPSHIP’s appearance:

• @LachsNumbers from Bengaluru has this to say: “Correspondent, I will not believe the MootMatrix is over until I am registered. The reiterations make me feel like a hamster in a wheel; not going anywhere while being chased by JUMPSHIP.”

• @GarfieldShares has this to add: “TU HAAN KAR YA NA KAR, TU HAI MERI MOOTER — this was a harrowing tale told to us by seniors where you would almost finish the MootMatrix and JUMPSHIP would catch you. I didn’t believe them until the now ongoing Iteration 3. God give me the power to run.“

• @ConfessionsOfADisgruntledMooter mentioned during the forced 214-second break she had to take from printing 214 important pages at her internship: “When R12 mutated into JUMPSHIP was when we all realised its similarity to Wolverine: it regenerates, attacks and stalls the MootMatrix for 100 other people.“

• @PalatialKastle also stated: “To edit what John Whitter originally said, ‘For all sad words of tongue and pen and code, the saddest are these: Rules might have been.’ “

When did you first meet Professor Madhava Menon?

I met Prof. Madhava Menon at a conference on legal aid in Bombay University. At the time, I was the Principal of GR Kare College of Law in Margao, Goa. I had heard that he was starting a Law School and so I asked him whether advertisement would come in the newspapers, for teachers. He did not give me a positive answer. Ultimately, I found the advertisement in Journal of Indian Law Institute – one of my students handed over that advertisement to me. After that I applied for the post and an interview was held on 30^th January 1988 in New Delhi, where I met him for the second time.

How did the interview go?

Interview went okay – it was not good or anything like that. One or two questions I could not answer. but I had given him a detailed report on the curriculum of National Law School.

What was your impression of Prof. Menon?

The first time I met him was only for 20-30 minutes, during the interview. I told him I wanted the job because I wanted to leave administration and focus on academia – he said I would have to do both, if I got to serve in the National Law School. As a person, of course, he is a well-know professor, an accomplished administrator, all of that is true. But the most important thing is that he led administration and academics by example – whatever he advised, first he did it in his life. Leadership by example, not by merely telling or giving advice.

Professor, we’ve heard that Prof. Menon’s conception of the Law School was based on Harvard. How true was this?

See, the point is that it wasn’t Harvard or anything like that. At this point of time legal education was given a step-motherly treatment as a part-time, evening college. Further, the examinations were more about cramming and less about analysis. So, entire legal education was in disarray, except for a few good ones here and there. He wanted legal education to be full-time, he wanted it to be professionally conducted, and with that view in mind he started the Law School. Our evaluation process is continuous – learning, teaching and testing together. And that is why that five marks of attendance was introduced – so that students would attend regularly. The system took your research abilities into account with your projects, and your communication ability is made proper by vivas. And with examinations, memory, case law and analysis was taken care of. That was the way he envisioned the trimester system. And by the end of the fifth year you would have made 60 projects, given 60 vivas. Even someone who was not able to speak at the time of admission – I remember a Sudanese student in the first batch, I don’t remember his name but he was roll number 54 or something, he was not able to speak – now at the end of the fifth year he spoke fluently – that’s because of the system.

What were his contributions?

He was the one who must be credited with the conceptualisation of the five-year system. Further, he made legal education interdisciplinary in character and context. When we were students it was only law in the text – no moot court or debating. But this is not sufficient – law in the text, law in the context, and law in action – that was the point of Law School, that was what he made it.

Professor Menon had four Es in his mind –

• Economy – we didn’t have enough money. Bar Council did give us some money, Govt of Karnataka gave us some money – but there were about nine teachers to start out with, salary to be paid, for teachers and administrative staff – we didn’t have enough money. He was very economical. He used to live in Dollars Colony, but then he left that house and came and lived here – it was not a very good building at that time. He wanted to save that money, so he gave those two houses on rent.
• Efficiency – with minimum number of staff, you must do maximum. Originally, we had nine teachers and only 4 subjects – and this was fine in the first two years. But as we developed courses we had to make sure it was efficient
• Ethics – we must be ethical. If I give grace to one student, I must give grace to a similarly situated student.
• If you join the above three – it leads to Excellence. In the very first trim, we had the Bar Council of India Moot Court – National Law Moot Court. Prof. Joga Rao was in charge of training the team; Prof. Venkata Rao taught international law at Vishakapatnam, so when our team reached the final they contacted Venkata Rao who told him what had to be done, how everything should be answered, and we got the prize.

How was he as a teacher? What was his relationship with the students?

He taught Legal Methods at the time, for the first year, along with Prof. NS Gopalakrishnan. He was very dedicated to his job. I remember this one time, the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University was coming to visit him. But he said he would take the class, and he would not leave the class.

He was very involved with his students. Whenever there was a problem, he had a meeting – what is known as Wednesdays – with faculty. It was a cabinet-like meeting. In that meeting if any problem is there with regards to discipline, or any suggestions brought forth in respect of students we would discuss it. We would give our opinion, but once a decision is taken, we would not question it – we would stand by it together.

When students asked for changes in the system, how did he handle it? What would he think of the student reforms that are being pushed for, like removing the attendance requirement?

For handling it he would have appointed one committee of teachers – who would be asked to submit a report. This would be discussed in the faculty meeting. Then we would call the students, explain to them what we are doing and for what reasons – and the students would be convinced. For example, if some students had a problem with the attendance, he would ask them to compensate for it in some way – like working in the library.

He would have nothing against the proposal – but he would have looked at the object of these reforms and the impact it would have on the standards of education. He would agree for a balanced decision considering all of these things. He would’ve asked how it impacts education? And he’d ask for you to keep this in mind in order to balance the change. And this balance depends on the leadership – whoever is coming here as the Vice-Chancellor needs to look into this balance, that is what is the most important.

We ask for everyone to take a moment and think of the kind of Law School this paints a picture of. To us, it is a Law School that was built on dedication and effort, where Prof. Madhava Menon led by example. To us, it is a Law School where both the students and faculty came together to ensure that it survived and was brought to glory on economy, efficiency and ethics, towards excellence. We ask for everyone to take a moment and think of the future we want for Law School, as we stand on this threshold.

All responses are Prof. Mitra’s own opinion.

This interview was conducted by Lakshmi Nambiar (Batch of 2023) and Apoorva Nangia (Batch of 2023).

When were you the Vice-Chancellor of NLSIU?

At the time it was not called Vice-Chancellor, it was called Director. It was at my time that the UGC said that Directors are also Vice-Chancellors. I became Director in 1997 and remained in office till 2000.

What was the process for appointing the Vice-Chancellor at the time of your appointment?

The procedure was simple – there was a Search Committee. The Search Committee had to search all over India, find the tallest person, and recommend three names to the Executive Council (EC). The EC would then propose one name to the Chancellor (at that time known as Visitor), the Chief Justice of India.

In the middle of March in 1997, Prof. Madhava Menon, my predecessor and Founder Director of NLSIU, called me and told me that my name had been proposed for the post of Director (Vice-Chancellor) of NLSIU. So my name was given by the EC, Prof. Menon carried it to the Chancellor, got the clearance, and the letter of appointment was given by Prof. Menon to me. By the end of March, within about two weeks perhaps, I received a letter – it was a matter of few days – my appointment had been accepted by the Chancellor, the CJI, and I was appointed.

In the case that the Chancellor didn’t accept the EC’s recommendation, he could refer it back and if they reiterate the same name, he is obliged to appoint. However, there was no occasion like that as the EC would not re-propose the same candidate if the CJI rejected it in the first instance.

Was there a process of accepting applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor?

No, it was the Search Committee. Actually, Vice-Chancellors during that time, from time immemorial, were appointed by Search Committees, not selected from a pool of candidates who applied for the post. Now, everybody appoints, or everybody demands that “I am also qualified to be VC” – but I never demanded, I never applied, neither did Prof. Menon. Vice-Chancellors are honourable persons, so they must be tall enough, people must recognise them. Then the Search Committee proposed three names, and that’s how I was appointed. Prof. Menon took the decision of the EC to the Chancellor, there must have been a file, he must have signed yes, and Prof. Menon drafted the letter of appointment and gave it to me.

Was there any involvement of the Registrar in the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor during your time?

No.

There was no question of the Registrar anywhere – the Vice-Chancellor was the one who would carry the file to the Chancellor, get it signed and approved, and issue the letter of appointment to the selected candidate for the post of Vice-Chancellor.

At the time if the EC did not approve of any of the three names put forth by the Search Committee, what would happen in such a case?

It is not a written law, but it is a common law principle, that the Chancellor may refer back to the Executive Council to reconsider. And he is such a tall person, if he refers back, the EC will deliberate. But for the Executive Council to reject all three names proposed by the Search Committee, would be dishonouring the Search Committee.

How did you conduct the process, when your successor was to be appointed?

When my successor was to be appointed, in the year 2000, a Search Committee was constituted which submitted three names – at that time people started lobbying for others. But lobbying was not there at the time of my appointment. The Chief Justice at the time referred the decision back to be considered – formally or informally, I am not sure. But there was a controversy – there was a debate in the Executive Council itself between the two candidates.

I became a kind of tennis ball in the middle of this, so I safely abstained. At that time, what happened was after waiting for some time, I felt it was not right for me to abstain. I went to the Chief Justice, as there was a time within which this had to be done – but the decision between the two people was left to the Chief Justice. There was no decision that could be made by the Executive Council.

Despite external factors, the matter was resolved quickly. Without my asking the Chief Justice to make the decision, there might have been a stalemate. A stalemate would have been problematic, because I might have been asked to continue. The law is that until the next person joins, the current Vice-Chancellor has to continue.

Under what conditions could a Search Committee’s recommendations be rejected?

What was done in the case of another university, the Search Committee put forth three names – one of which was a “super name”. But, Chief Justice, without looking at that list directly appointed somebody else. It was not the Executive Council, but the Chief Justice which set aside the Search Committee’s recommendations. Obviously, there are danger signals. But whatever the Chief Justice has to do, Chief Justice should do it even if he doesn’t like Krishnaswamy. I don’t know how much difference Krishnaswamy will bring to the National Law School. But, he is a very good choice, a brilliant boy, our student – he is a Rhodes scholar even. I would be very proud if he was to become the Vice-Chancellor – all the National Law School teachers ought to be proud.

What do you think about the student’s efforts to ensure completion of the process?

I am disturbed about the delay, and something should be done at the earliest to ensure completion of the process. And it is obvious that students are also disturbed. But it is not good sitting over there and making a strike – because it attracts the newspaper and it is a wrong coverage in a wrong way. Those who are employers take this kind of attitude very seriously when they recruit. It is not a healthy sign. You need to handle the newspaper coverage properly – they haven’t depicted the students in the best light.

But the procedure of VC appointment is very simple – a simple procedure for simple people – not to be made complex. I do not know where all the complexities, and the involvement of other people comes in. And why the Chief Justice is not signing it yet, I am not sure – there is a file, the resolution is given, the resolution must have been drafted by the EC, that out of the three names we recommend this person, and this resolution must be taken by the Vice-Chancellor and given to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice would not talk to anyone less than the Vice-Chancellor. It is as simple as this – Prof. Menon did that, I also did that, but it isn’t happening currently – so that means it is not in their priority list.