Published: 05th November 2018
Bombay High Court stays order to introduce Choice Based Credit System for law course in Mumbai University
Owing to the lack of clarity in implementing the CBSC system for its present academic year, the court directed the university to resume with the 100 marks written test format
The Bombay High Court on October 29, stalled the Mumbai University's move to introduce Choice Based Credit System (CBSC) for its three and five-year LLB courses for the academic year 2018-19. It has further asked the university to continue with its existing format of 100 marks written paper system.
In a circular dated August 24, the university requested that all the affiliated colleges replace CBSC system for the academic year 2018-19. The decision was finalised after the recommendations made by the University's Board of Studies was confirmed by its Academic Council.
However, this was challenged by petitioners, Dipak Kumar Chattopadhyay, a part-time lecturer in law college and a practicing lawyer. The others include Parthsarathi Saraf and Rohan Manohar, both final year LLB students at the college.
In their petition, they claimed that they weren't opposed to the move but stated that the changed system of internal assessment of 40% marks and 60% for the written test would drastically bring down the standard of legal education. Further, they stated that there were no clear-cut guidelines about the internal assessment.
In addition to lack of clarity in deploying the new format, months after the announcement about the introduction of the CBSC system, university released the exam timetables as per the 100 marks written system, leading the court to express the view that the university seemed unclear about their intention, "It appears that the Respondent – University itself was under confusion as to which system it has to follow”, the court said.
The University on its part stated that "The CBCS system is recognised worldwide and the assessment of the performance of the candidates only on the basis of final written examination is a thing of a bygone era," it noted.
While the court lauded the effort of the university to bring changes to legal education, it observed that shift in the midst of the present academic year would be detrimental to the students. "The shift in the midst of the academic year would cause serious prejudice to the interest of the students, who must have prepared themselves on the basis of the old system," the Division Bench of Justices B R Gavai and M S Karnik noted.