UGC’s new rule for mandatory 6-year LLB, 2-year LLM make no sense, says everyone
UGC’s new rule for mandatory 6-year LLB, 2-year LLM make no sense, says everyone
Question
marks surround the 5 July University Grants Commission (UGC)
notification that appeared to raise a death knell for the new one-year
LLM degree and the five-year integrated LLB degree to replace them
respectively with a mandatory two-year LLM and an LLB of six years.
The Times of India had reported on Tuesday:
UGC
wants universities to extend integrated courses duration: Higher
educational institutions offering integrated courses may have to revamp
their curriculum and extend the duration of their popular programmes
now. The University Grants Commission has laid down new norms on the
duration and curriculum of integrated courses, and many programmes being
offered now may not fit the bill.
However, only in 2013 India’s two-year LLM degree had been halved in duration to one year, with most national law schools scrapping their two-year LLM offerings
and shifting completely to the new LLM degree that was predicted to be
more popular and useful to compete with overseas LLMs. Furthermore,
India’s 15 national law universities and many other of the well-known
law schools provide only the five-year integrated LLM degree program.
The “specification of degrees” notification provided for the minimum mandatory course duration for 129 Indian degrees.
It stated:
“If
the Integrated/Dual Degree Programmes intend to offer two separate
degrees with an option for an interim exit or lateral entry, the
duration of the Integrated/Dual Degree Programme must not be less than
the duration equal to the sum total of the prescribed duration of the
two degrees that are being combined in the Integrated/Dual Degree
Programme […]”
And:
“The
academic philosophy/rationale behind offering such integrated Programmes
should not be for economizing on course requirements or award of double
degrees in a fast track. On the contrary, an integrated approach should
involve a vertical or interdisciplinary discourse.”
Legally India has
learned that the gazette notification is actually the report of the
UGC’s Standing Committee on the Specification of Degrees, headed by
Jamia Milia Islamia University Prof Dr Furqan Qamar, which was formed
over two years ago. Qamar told Legally India that the committee
had submitted its final report around 10 months ago. He added that the
nomenclature – the details and specifications - for the law degrees was
recommended by his committee before the Prof Madhav Menon headed LLM committee’s recommendations for slashing the 2-year Indian LLM degree to one-year was accepted by the UGC.
Qamar
also said that after his committee had made recommendations, a
“law-related committee” was formed to separately look into the
nomenclature of the LLB and LLM degrees. He said he was not aware if the
law-related committee had taken any final decision on the nomenclature
yet.
Nalsar Hyderabad vice chancellor Faizan Mustafa told Legally India
that when he had heard of such a nomenclature being recommended two
years ago, he had written to then Union law minister Kapil Sibal
opposing the recommendation. Sibal, said Mustafa, had said that he would
look into the matter but he had soon handed over the law ministry to
Ashwini Kumar.
Madhava Menon commented: “I think so far as LLM
is concerned, either the UGC might have decided to allow both [the one
year and the two year LLM degrees], or they should’ve withdrawn [the
one-year LLM notification]. Many universities are now running both
one-year and two year [LLM] also. One-year [LLM] is intended for a
slightly different purpose and [in] two-year [LLM] the objects are
different. But I have no idea about the decision of the UGC in this
regard.”
“Is it not laughable?” said Mustafa, adding:
“Integration of knowledge is the norm. This has been an old UGC rule
that when you combine two courses as an incentive you will give [those
enrolling] one year concession. Now they cannot go back on this
integration of degrees. It may be a problem of some private university
but the UGC which deals with public universities as well cannot one fine
morning say this. They cannot be changing it without looking into how
the one-year LLM will work. It was only last year that the first batch
[of one-year LLMs] was graduating. If they want to go back then it
should be a reasoned decision. No committee has looked into the failures
[of the one-year LLM]. [If they go forward with it] we are going to
oppose it. It’ll be an arbitrary decision.”
Mustafa added: “On a
different plane, the government of India and the UGC, they don’t see
eye to eye on the issue of innovation in terms of courses. On the one
hand the [Ministry of Human Resource and Development] says we should
launch more and more new and innovative courses, The MHRD says we should
have interdisciplinary courses. To have interdisciplinary courses [the
universities] have to come up with new nomenclatures. [But by the UGC]
restricting the universities’ power to have new and integrated
nomenclatures of degrees [it is] impinging on their autonomy and it’s a
contradiction in terms.”
UGC chairman Prof Ved Prakash and other UGC members were not reachable for comment since yesterday.
No comments:
Post a Comment