Vol. 17, Part II · pages 36–40

13THOUGHTS ON . . . . . . . . . BOMBAY PRESIDENCY stage at which every one in this country is required to make a choice of his career. 2. The second advantage of my proposal lies in its combination of economy and efficiency. A boy will be able to complete his legal education within 4 years. This is a saving of two years over the present system. The alternative suggestion also requires six years. From the standpoint of poorer students, it has no advantage over the present system. From the standpoint of training, I venture to say that the existing system as well as the alternative suggested by the Committee suffer in comparison with mine. The existing system allows only two year for the study which is undoubtedly very inadequate. The alternative scheme allots three years. But my scheme provides four full years. From the standpoint of efficiency, it is, therefore, superior to both. 3. The third advantage is that it will introduce a process of selection. Those who have not the definite object of entering the profession will be weeded out. Only those with the definite object will join. It will, thus, held to prevent the overcrowding of the profession. There is only one objection which may be urged against it by some with whom I have discussed it. It is that a Matriculation student will not be able to follow lectures in law. My reply to this is twofold. My friend, Mr. S. C. Joshi, M. A., LL.B., Advocate of the Bombay High Court, assures me that there is no substance in the objection. He is conducting the classes for the Bar Council’s Examination for the last several years with great credit as the results show. He has had first-hand experience of teaching Law to Matriculates and I attach much importance to his opinion in this connection. My second reply is that under my scheme, the course for the LL.B. is of two years and the study of Law need not commence from the first year. It may commence in the second. Coming to the last question of the reorganisation of the Law Colleges, this question was considered by a Committee appointed in 1898 as also by another Committee appointed in the year 1915

14 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES known as Chandavarkar Committee and the proposal was rejected. I confess, I have a prejudice against the proposal of making the Law College whole-time. It is a fact that many of the students who are studying law at present are working during the day to earn their living. Indeed, Legal Education would not be possible to many a student and if he was not in a position to earn his living while he is studying. And if the total course of study were to extend over a period of six years as it happens today, I would still oppose the proposal of a full-time College. No educationist would be justified, in my opinion, in devising his scheme of education in such a manner as to impose upon the parent the burden of maintaining a student for six years assuming that there are no failures. But in view of the fact that my scheme requires only four years for the completion of the course and also in view of the fact that the boy is to be taken in hand in a somewhat immature state, I have brought myself as a matter of sheer necessity to favour the proposal of full-time College. With regard to the staff of the College, I would organise it in two Divisions– the Tutors and the Professors. I am anxious that the actual teaching of Law should be done by persons drawn from the practising members of the Profession. In the absence of any touch with the practising members of the profession, a student in the Law College is likely to get into the academic groove so to say. He must be given a bias in favour of the practical. Only contact with the practising members can give a practical bias to his training. The professors, therefore, should not be required to be permanent members of the staff. Only the Principal and the Tutors should be permanent members of the staff. The work of the Tutors should be to give tuition to the boys and to coach them up, while the Professors and the Principal will do the lecturing. The object of dividing the staff into two classes is primarily to remove the defects in the method of instruction. The faults in the method of instruction now in vogue will be obvious to any one who has any experience of teaching in Law College. Under the present system, the share which the student takes in his own legal Education consists merely in taking notes of lectures delivered by the Professors. This system at the most acquaints the students with the

15THOUGHTS ON . . . . . . . . . BOMBAY PRESIDENCY provisions of the different Acts. But it is doubtful whether the system of mere lecturing affords a sufficient training of the student’s mind so as to enable him to apply legal principles to the complicated series of facts which arise in practice. There is also nothing in the system which can compel the student to follow up the lectures by reading the text-books prescribed with the result that student reads nothing till a few days before the date of the examination, when in order to work out the huge arrears he resorts to the notes and the cram books. There are different views as to the proper method of giving instruction in Law. Some prefer the case method; others prefer the text-book method, supplemented by lectures. No one can dogmatise as to which of the two is the correct method. Methods of instruction must, of course, be left generally to the discretion of the individual members of the Teaching Staff. But, I believe that some positive direction is necessary to the teaching staff to being to its notice the fact that the present system is faulty and that it is necessary to introduce some change in the method, which will demand a larger share of intellectual effort from the student and which will, while instructing him, also train him. I am of opinion that instead of mere lecture there should be a combination of lecturing work and tutorial work; unless the tutorial method is used to supplement the method of lecturing, there is not much hope of the new college producing a new and a better class of lawyers. The reform in the system of legal Education should in my view be accompanied by reforms in three other directions :– (1) All the different Examination in Law should be abolished and should be replaced by one Examination common to all practitioners and the distinction between Advocate (A.S.) and Advocate (O.S.) in so far as it is founded in difference in Examination should be done away with. If the distinction is to be retained, it should be founded on the choice of the practitioner who should be called upon to make his decision at the time he applies for the Sanad whether he would practise as an Advocate (A.S.) or as an Advocate (O.S.) or as a Solicitor.

16 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (2) There must be one common Examining Body. As a part of this scheme of re-organisation, I think a Council of Legal Education for supervising Legal Education and also for conducting Examination in Law should be established. The body should consist of the following :– (i) Representatives of the University. (ii) Representatives of the Judges of the High Court. (iii) Representatives of the Bar. (iv) Representatives of the Professors of Law Colleges. (v) Representatives of the Public. I am not prepared to hand over the function of the Examination to the Bar Council. There is a danger of the Council developing the Trade Union mentality. It would be fatal to the whole system of the Legal Education if such a mentality became an operative force in the conduct of Examination. Already the system of Examination has resulted in killing all interest in the study of Law. Care should be taken to see that there is no aggrevation of this unfortunate result. (3) The granting of the Sanad should not merely depend on the mere passing of the Examination. It should be made dependent upon the passing on three conditions. :– (a) The holding of a Degree in Law. (b) Reading in Chambers of a senior for one year and passing of an Examination in the Law of Pleading and the Ethics of the Profession. And in addition (c) (i) in the case of a person who wishes to take the Sanad of an Advocate (O.S.) the passing of an Examination in High Court Rules (Original Side).

17THOUGHTS ON . . . . . . . . . BOMBAY PRESIDENCY (ii) in the case of a person who wishes to take the Sanad of an Advocate (A.S.) the passing of an Examination in the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court. (iii) in the case of a person who wishes to take the Sanad of a Solicitor the passing of an Examination in (a) High Court Rules (Original and Appellate Side) and (b) Conveyancing. (d) Production of a certificate of good moral character. There is no justification left for the existence, diversities and anomalies when the system of education is made common to all and is extensive enough for any class of practitioners. With respect to the question of practical training in the Chambers of a Senior Lawyer it is necessary to mention the following points which arise for consideration : (1) Are there facilities for training ? (2) What would happen if no senior lawyer was prepared to admit a law student in his Chambers for training or those that were prepared demanded exorbitant fees ? All these points must be settled if the test of training is to be practicable. With regard to point No.1, I cannot be absolutely certain. But, I think it is possible to find a sufficient number of Seniors in Bombay and in the District Towns to provide facilities for practical training. On the second point I am sure that unless the High Court was prepared to compel a Senior to admit student to his Chamber for training the system would fail. The habit of not showing the tricks of the trade to one who may be possible rival and the fear that the student while under training will get into touch with the clients and will run away with some of them is so ingrained in the mind of the Seniors that I am sure, they will never consent to take student in their Chambers unless they are compelled to. In relation to third point I think