By Mohd Rehan and Saqib Rasool Bhat
After the advent of National Law Schools in India, the legal profession has become one of the most desirable professions in India. The visionary statement released by the Bar Council of India for the year 2011-2013 stated that the Indian legal profession today consists of approximately 12 lakh registered advocates, around 950 law schools and approximately 4-5 lakh law students across the country. Every year, approximately 60,000 – 70,000 law graduates join the legal profession in India. National Law Schools not only increased desirability but also added new dynamics to legal education.
The aim of the National Law Schools (hereinafter referred as NLU’s) established first in 1987 was to provide comprehensive legal and socially relevant legal education which confirms with the objective enshrined in the constitution. However, from their establishment, NLU’s adopted an exclusionary approach towards the marginalised strata of society by charging a huge amount of fees (around 10-15 Lakh course wise) for 5 years Integrated Programme.
In a survey conducted, by IDIA (Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access) a non-profit organisation working for the marginalised section, it was revealed that more than 83% of students’ parents earn more than 3 lakh per year and 53% earn more than 7 lakh. At the same time, nearly 80% of students took expensive coaching which is beyond the sum of 1 lakh or more to crack the highly competitive examination i.e CLAT(Common Law Admission Test).
In the survey, it was also revealed that only 1.6% of students came from Muslim families, despite Muslims constituting nearly up to 13% of the total population of India. The exclusionary approach is not only limited to minorities and economically weaker sections but also to Other Backward Class (OBC) as well. The issue of OBCs came to light when National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) served notice to all 23 NLU’s for not following government reservation orders and asked University Grant Commission (UGC) to take stringent action against NLU’s for flouting reservation norms. The above policy adopted run contrary to the spirit of a welfare state which has been clearly elucidated by the Hon’ble Court in D.S Nakara & Others vs Union of India.
“Article 38 (1) enjoins the State to strive to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effective as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all institutions of the national life. In particular, the State shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities”.
The exclusionary policy not only shed away the national character of NLU’s but also runs contrary to the objective enshrined in the Constitution which was once described by the great historian Granville Austin as a Document of Social revolution. The exclusionary policy at the root level is also one of the reasons for the poor representation of marginalised students in the legal arena.
After entering law school, be it traditional or modern, the suffering of students from the marginalised committee does not seem to have an end. The added new dynamics imported much importance to practical training. This forces students from various parts of the country to move to metropolitan cities like Delhi, Bombay. This movement puts an unnecessary burden on the lower-income group students who found it difficult to bear the lodging and food expenses in these urban hubs.
To add severity to their unended misery, students are forced to work without any pay in the name of gaining experience. The means adopted by senior advocates and big law firms not only offends the student’s right to dignity but is also against the ethics of the profession itself.
Even some human rights defending litigant firms charge interns around 4-5k for the registration only. So, rather than paying for the work, students are asked to pay so leaving no choice for students coming from marginalised strata. Willingly or unwillingly they are forced to labour which is begar and is against the mandate of Article 23.
In People’s Union for Democratic Right vs Union of India & others, the court held that “Under the old system, when pressed for public service, no pay was given. The Begari, though still liable to be pressed for public objects, now receives pay: Forced labour for private service is prohibited.” “Begar ” may therefore be loosely described as labour or service which a person is forced to give without receiving any remuneration for it. That was the meaning of the word ‘begar’ accepted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in S. Vasudevan v. S.D. Mital. ‘Begar’ is thus clearly a film of forced labour. Now it is not merely ‘begar’ which is unconstitutionally prohibited by Article 23 but also all other similar forms of forced labour. this article strikes at forced labour in whatever form it may manifest itself because it is violative of human dignity and is contrary to basic human values. Every form of forced labour begar’ or otherwise, is within the inhibition of Article 23 and it makes no difference whether the person who is forced to give his labour or service to another is remunerated or not. Even if remuneration is paid, labour supplied by a person would be hit by this Article if it is forced labour.”
The situation became worse when India was hit by the second wave of Covid-19, physical hearings were stopped, and courts started to conduct virtual hearings. During Covid, legal professionals went to starvation. The Supreme Court Bar Association came up with a proposed scheme to provide a loan of 25000 to junior lawyers. However, during hard times like Covid, interns were working online mode, without being paid.
All these happenings clearly point out the fact that legal education has turned to serve the privileged section of society only, and if the established members of the legal fraternity don’t come with a plan to handle these issues highlighted, the day is not too far when we will have members in the legal field from high-income groups. The irony is that the people who argue for a welfare state, practise discrimination in reality.
How would a professional fight for an inclusive system while maintaining an exclusionary approach towards marginalised sections is a thousand dollar question which needs to be answered by the legal fraternity.
The authors are pursuing their BA LLB from Aligarh Muslim University.
Related
