A report on the classes on 27.10.2015

Formal classes started on 27.10.2015. Smt. Smitha, teacher in Consumer Protection Law came to the classroom at 9.00 am and talked about Evolution of Law and Justice. The class was a little bit interactive. At the end of the class, a young student came to me and asked me not to intervene while the teacher teaches. She wanted to hear her without interruption. But some others asked me participate in the interaction as earlier because that contribute much to their benefit. A senior member of the students remarked that such interactions make the class live and interesting, otherwise the class may be monotonous  or boring.

Smt. Premsy, teacher in Jurisprudence came next. She started her class and ended the same without asking anything to the students. Nobody asked her any questions. Some of the main contents of the class were.

1.       Lawyer is a mediator like a priest. This phrase indirectly equates the Judge and the God. This simile is highly objectionable in the light of the interest of Justice executed by an erring man.

2.       There are some sources of law which shall be dealt with later. However even a contract comes under the purview of law. This is highly objectionable as the source of contract may not be from the organs of sovereignty.

3.       Justice is to give everyone his due. Law is a means to achieve its end Justice.

Smt. Premsy also pointed out that we had to learn Jurisprudence, legal language and interpretation of law in due course.

The class of the next hour was conducted by Smt. Premalatha, teacher of the Law of Torts. It was an introductory class. She told that Advocates Act 1961 provided for the constitution of the Bar Council of India which is responsible for the proper guidance of legal education in India.

According to her, Government Law College, Thrissur was established in 1992. Our Jubilee is nearing.

She also pointed out that we had to learn 28 compulsary law papers and 4 practical papers of which PT4 includes three moot courts, pre trial preparations and client interviews.

She said that the term Rule of Law means that the Law is supreme and all are equal under law.

She concluded with the Right of Education stating the cases Mohini Jain v/s State ofKarnataka and Unnikrishnan v/s State of Andhra Pradesh and the incorporation of Right to Education in the Constitution. 

For the forth hour there was no entrusted teacher, hence Smt. Sunitha conducted the class as a substitute. Her version of the evolution of Right of Education contradicted a little from the viewpoints of Smt. Premalatha, She also referred to M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India case too. 

I raised a question that prior to the amendment of Article 21 A, Right to Education was identified as coming under Article 21, in the light of the above case laws, but as per the principle Expressio unius est exclusio alterius = Expression of one is the exclusion of another, whether the 21A amendment which has express provision for education for children up to the age of fourteen only excluded the previous interpretation of Article 21 which was applicable to all citizens generally. Smt. Sunitha replied that both Articles 21 and 21A shall stand valid.

It was also informed that there was no class in the evening session as the teachers had an election class.