.png)
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has recently barred NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, from offering programmes in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and Online modes, marking a significant development in the Indian higher education landscape. This decision follows the rejection of NALSAR’s applications to offer postgraduate (PG) programmes under ODL modes on two separate occasions. The issue has sparked discussions on regulatory compliance and the boundaries of online legal education in India.
The Basis for UGC’s Decision
According to the UGC, NALSAR’s proposed ODL programmes conflicted with Regulation 2(z) of the UGC (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020. This regulation explicitly defines "prohibited programmes," which include ODL and online mode programmes in the discipline of law or its allied domains. The regulation aims to ensure that certain professional disciplines maintain their academic rigor and practical engagement, which may not be fully achievable through remote modes of learning.
A proviso to the regulation, however, leaves room for exceptions. It states that if the concerned statutory or regulatory council—in this case, the Bar Council of India (BCI)—permits any of the prohibited programmes in ODL or online modes, such programmes can be considered by the UGC. NALSAR, however, failed to provide a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the BCI, a key requirement for seeking approval for such programmes.
NALSAR’s Non-Compliance
Despite facing rejection from the UGC twice, NALSAR advertised an admission notification for PG programmes in ODL modes for the 2023-24 academic session on its official website. This move prompted the UGC to issue a show-cause notice to the university, questioning its decision to proceed with admissions for unapproved programmes. The matter was subsequently placed before the UGC’s Complaint Redressal Committee, which ultimately recommended a complete ban on NALSAR’s ODL offerings.
The UGC’s stringent stance underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory guidelines. In its decision, the UGC highlighted the lack of necessary clearances, particularly the NOC from the BCI, as a critical reason for rejecting NALSAR’s applications. By proceeding with admissions despite regulatory disapproval, NALSAR’s actions were seen as a direct violation of the UGC’s established norms.
Implications for Students
One of the pressing concerns arising from this development is the lack of clarity on how enrolled students can seek relief. NALSAR’s advertisement for the 2023-24 academic session likely led to several enrollments in the now-debarred programmes. However, the UGC has not provided specific guidance on measures to address the concerns of affected students. This leaves many aspiring legal professionals in a state of uncertainty regarding the validity of their enrollment and their academic future.
The lack of a clear remedial mechanism raises questions about the accountability of both the regulatory body and the university. Students who enrolled in good faith are now left in limbo, with no definitive answers about the recognition of their courses or potential refunds.
What Lies Ahead for NALSAR?
While the UGC’s decision is a significant setback for NALSAR, it does leave the door open for future applications. The Complaint Redressal Committee’s recommendation states that NALSAR can reapply to offer ODL programmes after the debarment period. However, any such application would need to be accompanied by the necessary approvals, including an NOC from the BCI, to stand a chance of being accepted.
This episode serves as a cautionary tale for higher education institutions looking to expand into the ODL and online education space. Compliance with regulatory requirements is non-negotiable, and any deviations can result in severe penalties, including bans and reputational damage.
The Broader Context of ODL in Legal Education
The UGC’s decision also brings to light the broader debate on the suitability of ODL and online modes for professional disciplines like law. Legal education traditionally relies on face-to-face interactions, moot courts, internships, and other experiential learning opportunities that are difficult to replicate in an online environment. The regulatory restrictions on ODL and online legal programmes reflect these concerns, aiming to preserve the integrity and quality of legal education in India.
Conclusion
The UGC’s decision to bar NALSAR from offering ODL programmes underscores the critical importance of regulatory compliance in higher education. While the move aims to uphold the standards of legal education, it also raises questions about the future of ODL in professional disciplines and the need for a more nuanced approach to regulation. For NALSAR, this serves as a wake-up call to align its ambitions with regulatory expectations. For students and the broader legal community, it is a reminder of the evolving dynamics of education in a digital age.
Sources referred-
Comments