News Type: Event

The National Law School of India University (NLSIU) is organising the Justice E.S. Venkataramiah Centennial Memorial Lecture on Sunday, December 22, 2024. The lecture on the topic ‘Reimagining Constitutional Institutions: Integrity, Efficiency, and Accountability’ shall be delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Narasimha, Judge, Supreme Court of India.

The event will be held at 11 am at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 43, Race Course Road, High Grounds, Bengaluru

About Justice E.S. Venkataramiah

Justice Engalaguppe Seetharamiah Venkataramiah served as the 19th Chief Justice of India. He previously served as a judge of the Karnataka High Court, as well as the Advocate General of Mysore. His daughter, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, is a judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Justice E.S. Venkataramiah enrolled as an advocate in the Karnataka High Court on January 5th 1948 and worked as a Special Government pleader starting from June 1969. He served in this position until March 5th 1970, when he was appointed as Advocate General of Mysore. On June 25th 1970, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court. On October 11th 1970, he became a Permanent Judge of the Karnataka High Court, where he served for nearly 9 years. On March 8th 1979, he was elevated to the Supreme Court. He became the Chief Justice of India on June 19th 1989 and retired at the end of the same year on December 17th. After retiring from the Supreme Court, Justice Venkataramiah taught Constitutional Law at NLSIU from 1992-97, during which  time he held the M K Nambyar Chair at the University.

According to the Supreme Court Observer, he was a part of benches that pronounced 720 judgments. Of these, he authored 256 judgments during his term at the Supreme Court.

Programme

1. Lighting of Lamp and floral Tribute to Justice E. S. Venkataramiah
2. Welcome by Prof. (Dr.) Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Vice-Chancellor, NLSIU
3. Tribute by Justice Mukul Mudgal, Former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court
4. Introduction of the Speaker by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B. V. Nagarathna, Judge, Supreme Court of India
5. Lecture by Hon’ble Justice P. S. Narasimha, Judge, Supreme Court of India on the topic – “Reimagining Constitutional Institutions: Integrity, Efficiency, and Accountability”
6. Felicitation of the Speakers
7. Vote of Thanks by Prof. (Dr.) N. S. Nigam, Registrar, NLSIU

RSVP: Registrar, NLSIU | E-mail: registrar’ | 080-23010000
Note: All guests are requested to be seated by 10:45 a.m.

Watch the video here: 

Gallery

In this week’s faculty seminar, Dr. Devyani Pande, Assistant Professor (Public Policy), NLSIU, will present a paper titled ‘Challenges of ChatGPT for higher education and policy responses in Asia: Investigating the first year of ChatGPT,’ that she co-authored with Dr. Panchali Guha, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Singapore Management University,

Abstract

Since its introduction in November 2022, ChatGPT, a generative AI (GenAI) model has disrupted higher education due to its impact on pedagogy, scientific writing, curriculum development, and educational assessment. Higher education systems (HEIs) and governments around the world are grappling with the issue of incorporating the use of ChatGPT in teaching and learning, and the potential impacts of doing so on educational quality and equity.

This study uses Factiva database to examine articles published in Asia in understanding the benefits and challenges of ChatGPT along with policy responses of the countries in the first year of its introduction. We conduct a thematic analysis of 1359 articles to find benefits for students and teachers, and challenges such as plagiarism, incorrect information, and impact on future jobs. The policy responses across countries at the level of governments and HEIs has been different with mostly a knee-jerk reaction of a ban followed by provision of guidelines for use of GenAI.

Based on the findings, we recommend introduction of training on the use of ChatGPT for educators and students, improving digital literacy in countries, adaptive policymaking for higher education, and coordination of HEIs and the governments to introduce measures for GenAI in higher education.

The NLS Law and Society Archives is organising an intimate poetry reading event with R. Cheran on ‘Poetry as Counter-Archives.’

About the Speaker

Dr. R. Cheran is a Tamil Canadian academic, poet, playwright and journalist. He is a professor at the University of Windsor in Canada. He has authored over fifteen books in Tamil, and his work has been translated into twenty languages and been widely anthologised. Several volumes of his work have been published in English translation including The Second Sunrise. Translated by Lakshmi Holmstrom. New Delhi: Navayana, 2010; You Cannot Turn Away. Translated by Chelva Kanaganayakam. Toronto: Mawenzi Publishers. 2011; In a Time of Burning. Translated by Lakshmi Holmstrom and Sascha Ebeling. Arc Publications, Todmorden: UK. 2013; Nirbajitha Kobita. Translated by Saubhik de Sircar in Bengali. 2018; Het verhaal van de Zea. Translated by Bhavani Thambirajah in Dutch. Assen: The Netherlands. 2018; Siembra Polo Palabras. Translated by Isabel Alonso Breto in Spanish. Barcelona: Navona Publishers. 2019; Kaatril ezuthal (Malayalam). Thiruvananthapuram: DC Books. 2020.

Related Works: Read R. Cheran’s well known poem ‘I Could Forget All This…‘ with commentary by noted translator Lakshmi Holmström.

There will be two presentations by NLS Faculty in this week’s seminar. The first presentation will be by Aparajita Lath, followed by Jai Brunner.

Presentation 1

Title: “The Indian Pharmacopoeia: Crafting A ‘Sovereign Function Exception’ Under Indian Copyright Law” by Aparajita Lath.

Abstract

Standardization of drugs and access to standards are important levers for effective drug regulation. In India, the Indian Pharmacopoeia is the official book of standards for drugs prescribed by the Central Government under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act). The Indian Pharmacopoeia is legally-binding and enforceable. These law-like standards form part of the D&C Act and are necessary for its effective implementation. The standards are also government created. The Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission (IPC), described as an ‘autonomous’ organisation of the Department of Health and Family Welfare (Central Government), has a legal monopoly of creating and publishing the Indian Pharmacopoeia. However, unlike other laws, the Indian Pharmacopoeia is not openly and freely published. Instead, the Government has exploited a gap in Indian copyright law to restrict access. Indian copyright law does not put ‘government works’ or ‘government-funded works’ in the public domain. As a result, the IPC claims exclusive rights over determining the mode and manner of publication. Today, the Indian Pharmacopoeia must be purchased from the IPC.

In this context, this article questions the Government’s policy of restricting access to law-like standards such as the Indian Pharmacopoeia. It does so from the dual lens of public law considerations of access to laws and copyright incentives. The article proposes the creation of a ‘sovereign function exception’ under copyright law to force certain categories of government works into the public domain. A sovereign function exception will appropriately resolve the tensions between public interest in access to government works and the State’s interest in limiting such access.

Parts: Part II traces the history of the establishment of the Indian Pharmacopoeia and the IPC. Part III outlines the key characteristics of the IPC, and analyses the extent of State intervention in its management, financing and operations. This examination is central to understanding whether the IPC is an autonomous organisation and whether the Indian Pharmacopoeia is ‘sufficiently law-like’. To put the Indian approach of standard-setting in perspective, Part IV discusses international standard-setting approaches, using the United States and Japan, as contrasting models. Part V analyses legal and policy concerns from the dual lens of access to laws and copyright protection. Part VI recommends the creation of a ‘sovereign function exception’ under Indian copyright law.

Presentation 2

Title: “The Promise of Substantive Equality? Transplanting the Indirect Discrimination Test into India” by Jai Brunner.

Abstract

In 2021, the Supreme Court of India expressly applied an indirect discrimination analysis for the first time in Lt. Cl. Nitisha v. Union of India. Directly borrowing the test formulated by the Canadian Supreme Court in Fraser v. Canada, the Court held that the Indian Army’s recruitment practices indirectly discriminated against certain women officers, in violation of Article 15(1) of the Constitution. In laying down the test of indirect discrimination, the Court emphasised that its overarching aim was to further substantive equality, in particular a version of substantive equality formulated by Sandra Fredman. However, as Vandita Khanna has shown, the Court lays down standards that fall short of this stated aim, thus risking ‘[to dilute] substantive equality…to rhetorical flourish’. How could the judgment have so fatally undermined itself? I ask whether the Court’s conceptual confusion is symptomatic of an underlying flaw in the Court’s reasoning? I examine the Court’s method for formulating the test of indirect discrimination – legal transplantation. I argue that the judgment engages in a type of comparative reasoning that is highly formalistic and abstract. The Court transplants Canadian doctrine into India in a manner that presumes that law is universal, irrespective of social context. The Court’s comparative method is divorced from what Mari Matsuda calls the ‘concrete realities of social life’. I argue that to completely abstract law out of the social context within which law exists, is not consistent with the mandate of substantive equality. Thus, though the Court sets forth to develop anti-discrimination doctrine with the stated aim of furthering substantive equality, it undermines itself by using a method of comparative law that is inconsistent with substantive equality.

NLSIU’s HUPA Chair on Urban Poor and the Law is organising a talk titled ‘Bangalore: the IT city that could (but doesn’t)’, being delivered by Dr Padmini Ray Murray.

About the talk

Despite the ubiquitous moniker of being the “IT city” there is very little evidence of how digital technology can be meaningfully beneficial for Bengaluru’s citizens. Even in times of crisis, such as the pandemic, citizens scrambled to create their own digitally mediated informal responses such as WhatsApp groups and websites: but despite the city’s much vaunted technological readiness, very little of the state’s resources could be harnessed in service of citizen needs. In this talk, Dr Padmini Ray Murray describes how access to technology by citizens, especially those on the margins and disenfranchised such as gender and sexual minorities as well as the disabled, is not sufficient and meaningful unless the city itself imagines itself as an interface for citizens to benefit from state resources, and will discuss recommendations for the same.

About the speaker

Dr Padmini Ray Murray is a feminist researcher, maker and the founder of Design Beku — a collective of researchers, artists, technologists and designers who work towards making design and digital practice more locally rooted, community-led, contextually relevant and ethical. Her research and practice focuses on challenging acts of infrastructural and algorithmic violence, and creating alternative digital spaces and imaginations that are characterised by feminist values, specifically an ethics of care. Design Beku has partnered with a range of community based organisations and NGOs such as Enable India, Point of View, Sangama, Maya Health, and Janastu on projects which range from feminist digital interventions, public health, and digital self determination for people with disabilities.

Gallery

In this week’s faculty seminar, guest speaker Prof. Andrew Newcombe from the University of Victoria, Canada, will give a talk titled ‘Towards a Pluralistic and Engaged Legal Education: Insights from UVic Law.’

Abstract

This presentation will explore the evolving regulatory framework shaping legal education in Canada and examine how Canadian law schools — especially UVic Law — are responding to these changes. With the Federation of Law Societies of Canada updating the national requirement for the common law degree, provincial law societies introducing new competency frameworks, and a series of reports criticizing legal education in Canada, there is pressure for change. Canadian legal education must address the country’s colonial legacy, the treatment of Indigenous peoples and the resurgence of Indigenous legal orders.

Since its founding, UVic Law has led the way in innovative approaches to legal education, adopting a critical, interdisciplinary, and policy-oriented perspective that views law as a dynamic and contextual process. UVic Law aspires to provide a pluralistic and integrated legal education that is interdisciplinary, experiential, and deeply engaged with community. This commitment is evident in both its common law JD program and its ground-breaking joint degree programs in Canadian common law and Indigenous legal orders (JD/JID). The presentation will highlight the Faculty’s existing curriculum and discuss potential innovations for the future.

About the Speaker

Professor Andrew Newcombe has been a faculty member at the Faculty of Law, University of Victoria since 2002. In 2022, he was appointed Associate Dean, Academic and Student Relations. Before joining the faculty, he articled and practised as an associate with a midsize law firm in Vancouver. After pursuing his LLM, he worked with the International Arbitration and Public International Law groups at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris.

Professor Newcombe teaches Contracts, International Arbitration and International Trade Law. He is an internationally recognized scholar in international investment law and arbitration. In 2004, he created  ita (investment treaty arbitration): a leading international research website focused on international investment treaty law and arbitration. Amongst other publications, he is the co-author of a leading treatise, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, and co-editor of Sustainable Development in World Investment Law. In addition to his academic work, he has advised governments, investors and non-State actors, and acted as counsel and arbitrator in international arbitrations.

The NLSIU Library Committee is organising a book talk at the NLS Library by Valerian Rodrigues on his book ‘Ambedkar’s Political Philosophy: A Grammar of Public Life from the Social Margins.’ The talk will take place from 5 pm to 6:30 pm. This is the first public discussion of Prof. Valerian’s book.

Panelists:

Valerian Rodrigues, Former Professor, Centre for Political Studies, JNU (Author of the book)
Shruti Kapila, Professor of History and Politics, University of Cambridge, and Visiting Professor, NLSIU
Arvind Narrain, President, PUCL, Karnataka

Moderator: Chandrabhan Pratap Yadav, Assistant Professor, Social Science, NLSIU

This event is open to the public and registration for members outside of the NLSIU community is mandatory to attend the event. To register, click here.

About the book

This study is organized around a set of key concepts that Ambedkar, the Indian thinker and leader of the socially marginalized, proposed to reconstruct public life, factoring in oppression and degradation. This framework conceived human beings as endowed with a distinct set of attributes entitling them to consideration as moral equals despite other differences among them. It also accorded a procedural priority to consciousness in human understanding. Ambedkar deployed this framework to contend against social institutions of caste, untouchability, and other forms of marginalities and to interrogate texts, traditions, and modes of social dominance. Ambedkar regards justice as foundational to modern societies. It called for ‘initial equality’ across its members while recognizing desert. All differential accomplishments, however, cannot be rewarded or compensated. Democracy is an essential requirement to resolve competing claims. As a self-governing mode of rule, democracy affords access to its members to multiple avenues of reach, learning, and enablement. Nationalism, a distinctive bond that precipitates with the entry of the masses into the political arena, is justiciable only if it has a definitive tilt towards democracy. Social relations, however, are caught in trappings of power across levels of a social ensemble. Control over state power is an indispensable condition to undermine dominance and enable the commons. The representational, constitutional, and institutional architecture of power must be geared to this end. Such a pursuit needs to be secured through an apt moral anchor shored up through religious sanctions. In Ambedkar’s view only Buddhism can measure up to this demand.
(Source: Oxford University Press)

About the author

Valerian Rodrigues is currently a Jawaharlal Nehru University Fellow, Nehru Memorial Trust, New Delhi, and former Professor, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He has taught at Mangalore University, Karnataka (1982-2003) and Jawaharlal Nehru University (2003-2015). Rodrigues has been National Fellow of the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) (2015-17) and Ambedkar Chair, Ambedkar University, Delhi (2017-2018). He has also been Visiting Scholar and Professor at Erfurt University (2012), Wuerzburg University (2011, 2015), and Simon Fraser University (2019), and Fellow of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University (1989-1991), Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla (1999-2001), and Max Weber College, Erfurt (2012).
(Source: Oxford University Press) 

Excerpts from the talk

On ‘frames’ of thinking

“A thinker has a kind of substratum on which he builds up his positions. What is that substratum? People have called it different things. You could call it ‘epistemic,’ you can call it ‘frame’. Say for example, Professor Amartya Sen calls it a ‘frame’. You can call it whatever term that you use. I was interested, what is the frame of thinking that this man [Ambedkar] employs to take up the kind of stances that he takes? And that remains invariant over the changes.”

The Ambedkar-John Dewey connection

“How does he [Ambedkar] go about thinking? … Recently there have been a lot of people who have been writing the connection between the American philosopher, John Dewey, and Babasaheb Ambedkar and some of them even have reduced Ambedkar into a footnote of John Dewey. I thought that these are claims that are not warranted.”

‘Being’ vs ‘Consciousness’

“Ambedkar thinks that ‘consciousness’ is primary for understanding and rejects the central Marxist thesis of primacy of ‘being’ over ‘consciousness.’ Ambedkar just reverses it and begins to say ‘consciousness’ is before and ‘being’ is defined by ‘consciousness.’ But this is not a two way process, but deeply interactive processes wherein consciousness undergoes changes but the nature of being also undergoes changes because you don’t merely think but you also act.”

Ambedkar’s idea of the ‘human’

“I think the idea of the ‘human’ is quite central to Ambedkar and, Ambedkar begins to begin to dwell extensively on that. The concept of ‘rights’ are dependent upon the idea of the ‘human’ and Ambedkar comes very strongly to argue the concept of ‘human dignity,’ that there is a unique dignity that people have and that dignity goes into making them as equal … The idea of ‘conscience’ is also quite central to Ambedkar and he also critiqued the tradition by invoking this idea. Ambedkar rejects the idea of ‘God’ and man and I hope, you know, an argument which he makes in ‘The Buddha and His Dhamma,’ I put it there in the idea of the human because he thinks eventually humans have to take charge of their own lives. They have to take charge, they have to be responsible and the idea of ‘God’ and the idea of the ‘soul,’ etc., do not allow human beings to take charge of themselves.”