For second year in a row, mass failure at Delhi University’s law faculty

For second year in a row, mass failure at Delhi University's law faculty

New Delhi: For the second year in a row, around half of the first year students at Delhi University’s law faculty have failed in at least one subject, leading to protests by them.

The students alleged there was some problem with the results that were declared yesterday as some of them have been marked absent even though they appeared in the exam, while the scores of a few others were revised later.

The Faculty of Law has three centresĀ – Law Centre I (LC I), Campus Law Centre (CLC) and Law Centre II (LC II). CLC usually admits the highest scorers of the entrance test.

A total of 882 students out of 1944 students have failed in at least one subject in the semester examination.

 

Delhi University's 5th and final cut-off list released; seats still available in several prominent colleges - Know details

“There seems to be some goof up in the result because I have failed in a subject I was very confident of scoring well. I will apply for rechecking,” said Ruchika Bhatt, a first-year student.

Another student Ritika Thakur said, “I am surprised to see the results, there has been some problem for sure, I will get my paper re-evaluated and find out what went wrong”.

Faculty of Law Dean, SC Raina, denied any mistakes and maintained that the students’ performance has been evaluated accurately.

“The papers have been checked properly and moderation is done following proper methods…What can go wrong? What can the faculty do if students don’t study and write their exams well,” Raina said.

Meanwhile, law faculty aspirants are agitated over a delay in admission counselling as well as the Bar Council of India’s recommendation to reduce the colleges’ seat intake by scrapping evening classes.

At least hundred aspirants had yesterday protested atĀ Delhi University and the Delhi High Court against the delay.

The recommendation has been made after a committee of BCI, the apex regulatory body for legal education and the legal profession in India, submitted an adverse report about the infrastructure and quality of education being imparted at the centres of DU’s law faculty.

In an unprecedented move, BCI had in 2014 decided to derecognise DU’s law course after it failed to seek a timely extension of the affiliation of its three centres.

It was granted a provisional extension of affiliation for the 2014-15 session after DU had proposed to shift to a new building which it claimed “had adequate space” for the faculty to run properly.

However, after a fresh inspection by a BCI panel, the council had issued it a show-cause notice to DU to explain the “illegalities” in its functioning including more than permissible student strength, lack of infrastructure and faculty.

The council had in January communicated to the university to shut down colleges offering law courses in evening shifts, saying such programmes do not ensure proper quality of legal education.