Project 39A is related to Article 39A of the Constitution of India which deals with the provisions of equal justice and free legal aid. National Law University, Delhi, using empirical research to re-examine practices and policies in the criminal justice system, aims to trigger new conversations on legal aid, torture, forensics, mental health in prisons, and the death penalty by this project.
PROGRAMME AND ROLE
Project 39A is seeking to engage a long-term intern on a part-time basis for remote work on issues related to legal aid in the criminal justice system for its Fair Trial Fellowship Programme (“Programme”). The period of internship will be for 6 months and any extension will be subject to the needs of the Programme.
The intern will assist with archival, doctrinal, comparative, and quantitative research focused on Project 39A’s work on legal aid. The intern will assist in writing research reports and journal articles dealing with contemporary issues in legal aid and criminal law in India. The intern will also have the opportunity to develop innovative strategies with the communications team for the dissemination and outreach of our work.
ELIGIBILITY
II-Vth year students of a 5-year LLB programme or II-IIIrd year students of a 3-year LLB programme.
DURATION
6 months
STIPEND
The intern will be paid a stipend as per the standard of Project 39A. (Shortlisted applicants will be invited to attend a virtual interview and Project 39A reserves the right to conduct further rounds of assessment.)
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
Project 39A draws inspiration from Article 39-A in the Indian Constitution on equal justice and opportunity in the legal system. We work on issues specific to the criminal justice system and undertake litigation, research and outreach relating to forensics, torture, legal aid, forensic psychiatry and the death penalty.
The National Law University, Delhi (‘University’) is seeking to engage six (6) full-time ‘Research Assistants’ for Project 39A, to work for a period of four (4) months on a research project examining the practical application of due process safeguards on arrest and remand, in Magistrate Courts in Delhi.
RESEARCH PROJECT
Role of Magistrates in Ensuring Constitutional & Statutory Safeguards
The project will focus on the possibilities of justice represented by custodial safeguards, which come into play the moment a person steps into police custody, and the limits therein. Rather than considering justice as the endpoint of a process of investigation, or after a person has been the subject of custodial violence, this study will examine the first point of interaction between the state and the citizen in custody. Since access to justice, especially in custody, is mediated by class, caste, religion, and gender (for instance), that will be a central framework of the study.
Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution requires that the police produce arrested persons before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. The first production is the first time that the judiciary- the institution reflecting the rule of law and a check on the executive- must exercise its oversight powers to ensure constitutional and statutory protections for a person in custody. At this stage, the Magistrate is empowered to scrutinise the grounds and legality of the arrest, assess the availability of quality legal representation, consider the safety of the accused in custody, and make a determination on bail or further detention. Through subsequent remand hearings, the Magistrate is also required to monitor the investigation and the entire duration spent by the accused in police custody. Thus, the Magistrate is empowered to play a crucial role in balancing the rights of an accused with the requirements of a police investigation.
This study will involve observing court proceedings on first production and remand, over a period of 90 days, to qualitatively consider the manner in which Magistrates are able to realise due process safeguards and protect the rights and dignity of the accused in custody, particularly those belonging to socio-economically vulnerable groups.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Conduct empirical research through observation of court proceedings in select Magistrate Courts in Delhi and interviews with relevant stakeholders, as per the project design.
Contribute to collating and analysing findings from court observations and interviews.
Contribute to the writing of the report and/or other materials based on the findings of the project.
Any other work that may be necessary to ensure the effective implementation and completion of the project within the proposed timelines.
QUALIFICATIONS
A PhD or postgraduate degree in any of the relevant fields, including Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science, or any other Social Sciences.
Demonstrable experience in conducting independent ethnographic or empirical research, particularly on socio-legal issues.
Knowledge and familiarity with issues related to the criminal justice system, courts, and criminal procedure. Prior work in Delhi courts would be an advantage.
Prior engagement with perspectives on systemic discrimination (for instance, due to caste, class, religion, gender, or sexuality) and its intersection with access to justice concerns.
Ability to comprehend, converse, read and write Hindi, fluently.
Compensation: Remuneration will be commensurate with qualifications and experience, and will be approximately INR 50,000 per month. Project 39A will incur all travel-related expenses separately. The duration of the contract currently will be four (4) months. The contract may be terminated before the completion of four (4) months or may be extended, as required.
APPLICATION PROCESS
Interested persons may submit their resumé and a statement of purpose, explaining their interest in working on this specific project and their relevant work experience. Applicants are requested to fill out the form in the link below and attach the relevant documents.
In case of any difficulty in submission through the form, please send your queries to p39a@nludelhi.ac.in Deadline: Applications must reach us no later than midnight of September 16, 2022. Applications received after this date will not be considered.
The NLU Consortium, along with the petitioners, Tamanna Chandan Chachlani and Rishabh Soni have approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge the controversial decision of the Bar Council of India to scrap the one- year L.L.M. program and derecognizing the foreign L.L.M. degrees. This appeal was heard before the bench of Hon’ble CJI SA Bobde and Justice AS Bopanna. In a recent notification to the BCI Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020 (Rules), by the Bar Council of India had scrapped the one- year LLM degree and had mandated that the Master’s degree be of two years spanning over a total of 4 semesters. These rules at the same time had partly derecognized the foreign LLM stating that they shall be equivalent to the LL.M obtained in India only after an LL.B degree from either a foreign university or an Indian university equivalent to a recognized degree of LL.B in India. The counsel appearing for the NLU consortium submitted that the foundations of these rules is fallacious and reflected a gross misunderstanding of the Advocates Act or any other statutory provision for that matter. These rules further, seek to usurp the jurisdiction which is vested in other statutory provisions. Further, none of the NLUs were consulted before taking this decision by the BCI A major contention put forth by the petitioner was that the LL.M is not a practitioner’s degree and further, BCI deals only with the enrollment requirements. Moreover, Advocates Act, under which the BCI has assumed its jurisdiction cannot be used to regulate any academic or vocational program which is not a pre requisite for the enrollment of advocates. On asking whether or not the BCI has the power to regulate the one- year LL.M degree by the CJI, the counsel for the petitioner replied that the BCI does not have the power to regulate higher education courses as they are regulated by the UGC and were brought by the knowledge commission under the HRD ministry. When the bench expressed its inclination to issue notice, the petitioner prayed for interim relief and put forth the fact that applications for enrollment have already been started and over 5,000 applicants have applied for their enrollment at the time when BCI came up with the rules for further notification. Thus, the petitioner prayed to the Hon’ble bench to allow the status quo to continue. The bench asked the petitioner to file on the affidavit the argument that 5,000 applicants have applied for the one- year LL.M course and the fees has also been collected for the court to consider interim relief. The BCI also stated in its notification that the entrance for the LL.M program shall be through Post Graduate Common Entrance Test in Law conducted by the BCI itself. And after its introduction, it shall be mandatory for the universities to admit students through the merit list of this entrance test. It was further argued that this decision of the BCI was violative of the article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution as they were issued without any statutory powers and are arbitrary and unreasonable. Moreover, it was contended that the notification released by the BCI is ultra vires as the power to regulate higher education courses in law lie with the UGC and not with the BCI.
Debashish Kumar Panda & Ors v. National Law University, Delhi & Ors.
A petition has been filed by the students of University Law College, Bhubaneswar in Delhi High Court for disclosure of records and marks of the participants in the memorial round of the Moot Court Competition organised by NLU-D for celebrating the 70th Constitution Day.
The petitioners submitted that they duly registered themselves and submitted their memorials on time. The Petitioners followed all the rules of the Moot Court as mentioned in the Rules and Regulations & ‘Mooting Manual’ as was released by the coordinating and organizing University: National Law University -Delhi.
It is alleged by the Petitioners that they received an email from the Organizing Committee NLU-Delhi informing them about their selection in the list of Top 24 teams and their eligibility to participate in the oral rounds.
It is further stated that on 08.10.2020 an email was received by the Petitioners from the Organizing Committee of the Moot Court stating that “there was an error with respect to the scores and the final list of 24 teams will be released on 09.10.2020.”
Petitioners received an email on 09.10.2020 wherein the petitioner’s team was not included in the list of shortlisted teams. The petitioners then wrote emails to the Organizing Committee requesting them to clarify on which ground their team has been disqualified and to kindly disclose the marks immediately. However, the Organizing committee chose not to respond to the email of the Petitioner. The petitioners then approached the office of Vice-Chancellor and Registrar but received no reply.
The petitioners contended that “the action and inaction of the Respondents areunjust, unfair and violative of the principles of natural justice. There was no error on part of the Petitioners. They acted with due care. They timely registered themselves andsubmitted the memorials on time. Since the Petitioners have registered and duly submitted the Moot Court memorials on time as per the rules of the Moot Court Competition, the Petitioners have the right to know the marks obtained by them in such memorials.”
The petitioners submitted that because the Moot Court plays an important role while getting placements in any law firm, corporate and other places, the Petitioners have invested two months of hard work and dedication for preparing for the said Moot Court Competition and not getting even a chance to appear in the oral rounds of the said Moot Court Competition because of the unknown reason is unjust and unfair. The Petitioners could have invested the said time and energy in preparation for another Moot Court Competition or writing a research paper which would have helped them in their career prospects.
The petitioners further contended that no reasons were given for rejecting the petitioners and that “the Respondents No. 1-4 have failed to give cogent reasons for disqualifying the Petitioners and the exact reason for disqualification instead they have chosen to reject the Petitioners team arbitrarily by simply mentioning that it is human or technological error, meaning thereby that even the Respondents No. 1-4 are unaware of the reasons for rejecting the Petitioners who were selected in the 24 shortlisted teams out of the 115 teams.”
The petitioners alleged that since the Moot Court is to be held virtually, no grave inconveniences would be caused to the Respondents No. 1-4 in accommodating the Petitioners since it is not a physical moot court, the Respondents No. 1-4 need not arrange additional infrastructure and will not incur extra/additional expenditure on food, accommodation, travel etc.
“The theme of this Moot Court Competition is ‘Kartavya’ (Duty) and the Organizing Committee failed in their Kartavya/duty to maintain transparency. Non-disclosure of the marks obtained by the Petitioner gives an impression that the error is not a genuine one.”
The petitioners seek that the Hon’ble HC allow the Petitioners to appear in the oral rounds of the Moot Court Competition and direct the Respondents to produce the records before the Court and apprise the Petitioners their marks obtained.
Amid all the chaos happening inside the country due to the ongoing pandemic situation, the Common Law Admission Test – CLAT-UG 2020 examination was successfully conducted on 28th October. CLAT 2020 was conducted via online mode this year. Students willing to get admitted to various NLUs wrote the examination.
The Question paper was based on the new pattern which carried 150 Questions only. (Previously 200 Questions):
The CLAT 2020 examination could be considered as“Moderate yet Lengthy “, as most of the question were based on passages.
CLAT-Peeps is an initiative by Lexpeeps. CLAT-Peeps presents you a brief section-wise Paper Analysis. Keep reading in order to see the detailed analysis.
First Impression – Paper was lengthy(Even Questions and Options were lengthy)
Difficulty -Moderate (Overall)
Total No. of Questions -150
Time Allotted -120 minutes (No section wise time-limit observed)
Section Wise Break Down of Questions:
Current Affairs – Moderate to Difficult
The questions were analytical rather than just factual. Excerpts from various newspapers were seen.
Key Areas-
COVID- 19
Atma Nirbhar Bharat Scheme
National Education Policy
Peace Deal between UAE & Israel
RAFALE
Indo-Pak SAARC Virtual meet held on September 24.
Inaguration of Road to Kailash Mansarovar.
Legal Reasoning – Moderate to Easy
Key Areas-
Force Majeure
COVID -19
Obscenity
Excerpts based on landmark cases
Principal Of Natural Justice
Mob Lynching
Defamation
Common Intention
Article 20 (1)
Logical Reasoning– Moderate to Easy
Reasoning was mainly focused on logical deductions.
Key Areas-
Premise Arguments
Statement-Arguments
Statement-Assumptions
Statement -Course of Action
Statement Conclusions
Deriving Conclusions from passages
Theme detections
Cause and Effect Reasoning
One Question from Analogy
One from PuzzleTest (Classification type Question)
English Language -Moderate
A set of passages were given, The questions were set to test the students’ ability to understand the content of the passage and to infer information and meaning from it.
Key Areas-
No Grammar questions were seen.
The comprehensive part was lengthy.
Boys Locker Incidence, Climate Change, etc (current issues based).
