The National Law University (NLU) in Jodhpur has come under scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India for its reliance on contractual teachers. Labeling this practice as both
“unacceptable and undesirable,”
the apex court drew attention to the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations. These regulations stipulate that only a maximum of 10% of university staff can be contractual. Despite NLU Jodhpur’s recent amendments proposing an equal split between permanent and contractual staff, the university has yet to implement these changes.
Further deepening the court’s concerns is the current leadership vacuum at NLU Jodhpur. The university lacks a Vice Chancellor, and even the Registrar’s position is filled by a contractual appointee. In defense of its staffing choices, NLU Jodhpur highlighted its status as a self-financing institution without government aid. However, this rationale found little favor with the court.
Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, who presided over the case, emphasized the vision of National Law Universities as
“institutions of excellence.”
They opined that achieving such excellence becomes challenging with a high turnover of teaching staff, a direct consequence of contractual employment. The justices expressed a preference for NLU Jodhpur to address and rectify the situation independently, without the court’s intervention.
The backdrop to this case is a Special Leave Petition filed by NLU Jodhpur in 2019. This petition challenged a judgment from the Rajasthan High Court that had nullified some of the university’s service regulations. The High Court had also raised concerns about the university’s heavy reliance on contractual staff, noting that globally recognized law universities, known for quality education, don’t solely depend on contractual or adhoc teachers.
After considering the presented arguments, the Supreme Court decided to grant an adjournment, providing an opportunity for NLU Jodhpur’s counsel, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, to offer more comprehensive advice to the university.
The case is set to be revisited on October 31, 2023. This unfolding scenario underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding educational standards and its proactive stance in ensuring quality education in premier institutions.