28th November, 2018
Shri Keshari Nath Tripathi,
His Excellency the Governor of West Bengal
Sub: Concerns Regarding the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
(Amendment) Bill, 2018
Respected Sir,
The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (‘NUJS’) was established by
the WBNUJS Act, 1999 enacted by the West Bengal State Legislature. As the statute’s Preamble
states, the institution was envisioned as a “national level institution of excellence in higher learning
of law.” In a span of eighteen years, NUJS has carved an outstanding academic reputation for itself
as one of the most sought after law schools in India, measured by the preferences of applicants
writing the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) in which NUJS currently is the institution of
third preference (after NLSIU Bangalore and NALSAR, Hyderabad) amongst 20 national law
schools whose admission is administered through the CLAT since 2008. This identity of NUJS –
as an autonomous, national level institution of legal excellence stands in doubt with the passing of
the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Bill, 2018 (‘the Bill’).
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND THEIR UNPLANNED IMPLICATIONS
The Bill introduces amendments which seek to change the character of NUJS as an institution of
excellence which has contributed to nation building. These amendments are not only vague and
contrary to constitutional principles but also detrimentally affect the institution.
A. Separate Entrance Examination and CLAT [Clause 4B (1) and Clause 4 B(2)]
This provision provides that admission to the University shall be on the basis of “qualifying
examination or … relevant entrance examination conducted by the University or by Common Entrance Test
conducted at the State or National Level.” This vague provision violates the mandate of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India in so far as it ambiguously allows the University/State to provide for two
Page 1 of 4

 distinct examinations for entrance to NUJS at the same time. Such a provision also goes against
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradip Jain v. Union of India (1998 12 SCC 12) which
mandates that an institution cannot have a separate common entrance test for the same batch of
students.
This provision also allows the University/State to exit the CLAT framework of admission. The
CLAT framework of providing a national common entrance test was the result of the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varun Bhagat v. Union of India [WP. (C) No. 68 of 2006]. This was
further reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the on-going petition Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India
while examining the question whether National Law Schools can prescribe regional reservations
and whether they are to be considered as Institutes of National Importance. If enacted, this
provision goes against the decisions of the Supreme Court and also is an invitation for arbitrary
admissions in NUJS which is anathema to the concept of merit that should govern educational
institutions.
B. Domicile Reservation in a National Institution [Clause 4A (3)(b)]
This Bill reserves “at least thirty percent of the total intake” for students “domiciled in the State of West
Bengal.” This provision is equally vague as the bill does not define ‘domicile’ unlike similar
legislations in others states which do so by specifying the duration of residence.
Such a provision would lead to reduction of opportunity for students from general and reserved
category students from all the States except West Bengal. In this regard, the decision of the
Supreme Court in A.I.I.M.S Student Union v. A.I.I.M.S and Ors. [(2002) 1 SCC 428] and Saurabh
Chaudhari and Ors. v. Union of India [(2003) 11 SCC 146] state that domicile reservation for students
of one state must be kept at a minimal in a national institution which has been envisaged to serve
the country as a whole. In such cases, merit of the candidates must be the sole guiding principle.
Furthermore, while the Bill justifies this provision in its statement of object and reasons by stating
that ‘it is to bring in consonance’ with other national law schools which have domicile reservation.
However, it fails to take into account that unlike other national law universities, such as the
neighbouring NLU-Odisha which recently received a grant of more than INR 300 crores from the
Government of Odisha, the contribution of the West Bengal government to the institution has
been minimal and dispensable.
Moreover, in the words of its founder Prof. Madhav Menon, NUJS was founded by the then
government with the Chief Justice of India as its Chancellor giving it a national character and
institutional autonomy unprecedented in higher education in West Bengal. The introduction of
similar reservation through an amendment in National Law School of India University (NLSIU)
Page 2 of 4

 Bangalore, which is the only other NLU with such an administrative structure, raised multiple
technical questions causing His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka to return the bill for reconsideration.
C. Compromising Financial Autonomy [Clause 4A (1) and Clause 4A (2)]
Currently, NUJS is a self-financing autonomous institution run on student fees. Since its inception,
NUJS embarked on a model of self-sustainability through a combination of revenue generation
from

student

fees,

philanthropic

grants

and

project

consultancies.

Later, to cope up with increased salaries of the faculty and administrative staff who unlike their
counterparts in other state universities are paid at central government pay-scales, NUJS was forced
to expand its batch-size without concomitant expansion in faculty, student housing and
infrastructure.
The bill via clause 4A grants the state the power to fix the fees for the students. It also grants ‘freeships’ to at least 5% students belonging to poor and economically backward classes. However, it
also states that it shall have no financial implications on the state.
Consequently, while regulation of student fees and tuition waivers are a laudable objective,
the bill does not address the financial implications arising out of the same. According to
the report of the University review commission constituted by the chancellor, Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India, student fees currently contribute to 153% of the University’s expenditures (page
42). The report also recommends that “NUJS establish an expert committee to propose a financial
plan for NUJS for the next decade consonant with its vision and mission.”
Without taking into account these considerations, a hasty decision to regulate student fees in the
absence of sufficient state funding to compensate for it, would practically make it unfeasible for
the University to operate at its expenditure standards. It will consequently lead to the University
determining its expenditure based on the state government’s prerogative. For instance, one of the
major expenses of the University – the staff of faculty and administrative staff – will need to be in
accordance with the state government’s pay-scale. Currently, the West Bengal government
continues to pay its employees as per the 5th pay commission. The University, on the other hand,
is on the verge of implementing the 7th pay commission of the Central Government. Consequently,
any decrease or freeze on increment will lead to faculty attrition. This will be aggravated by the
fact that the other national law universities including the recently established Himachal Pradesh
National Law University pay their faculty at a much higher-scale.
D. Non-consultation with Stakeholders
Page 3 of 4

 At this point, the University has been yearning for administrative stability and dynamic leadership.
Since April 2018, the University has been functioning under an acting vice-chancellor. There have
been no permanent registrar or accounts officer appointed to the University for the past 3 years.
The post of the finance officer has been vacant since the inception of the University. In lack of a
permanent administration, the University affairs are in a dire state and its functioning and growth
have been temporarily halted and paralyzed. In spite of such state of affairs, the bill was
introduced without any consultation with its stakeholders - the Chancellor of the
University (Hon'ble Chief justice of India), its Governing Bodies, its faculty
and administration.
The Minister-in-Charge for the Law Department and the Judicial Secretary who have drafted and
proposed the bill are members of the University’s Executive Council. However, no discussion or
consultation on the proposed bill was initiated by them in the last executive council meeting on
29th September, 2018 attended by them comprising of the Vice-Chancellor (Chairperson), Registrar
(Secretary), University Treasurer, Justice Arun Mishra (Nominee of the Chief Justice Of India),
the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, the Advocate General of West Bengal, Addl. Chief
Secretary to the Higher-Education Department, Vice-Chancellor of National Law School of India
University (NLSIU) Bangalore, Director Of IIM-Calcutta and Members of the Faculty among
others. In the absence of any consultation and no clear plan of action to tackle the possible
ramifications of the bill, the bill could jeopardize the growth, development and excellence
that the University has managed to achieve in eighteen years of its existence.
Therefore, the provisions of the bill are vague, pose technical problems and raise concerns about
their constitutional validity. This Bill also threatens the institutional autonomy and national
character of the institution and if implemented without adequate consultation, will lead NUJS into
a state of permanent paralysis. In light of these considerations, we humbly pray that Your
Excellency kindly require the Bill to be reconsidered.
Yours sincerely,
(On behalf of the entire student body of NUJS)

Arindum Nayak

Gatha G. Namboothiri

(President, Student Juridical Association)

(Vice President, Student Juridical Association)

Page 4 of 4