DU LLB aspirants complained that most of the CUET paper had mathematics-based questions, while questions based on legal studies hardly featured in the test.

Many applicants for the three-year LLB programme have complained that the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) test featured more questions about mathematics than their chosen field. The same has been true this year for a number of other programmes, including African studies and library sciences.

Several aspirants claimed that 75% of the paper had mathematics based questions, while featuring hardly any questions on legal studies. It had been reported that a separate paper had not been assigned for LLB aspirants and that they would have to give a general paper. Many students complained that they were being asked about terms like “dot matrix printer”.

“There were around 12 questions that covered general knowledge and legal aspects. Around 20 were related to English, which law aspirants can attempt. Beyond that, everything was high-level mathematics. As a law aspirant, I don think this will help us in any way.” said Muskan Jain, a graduated from Dyal Singh College, in conversation with the Times of India.

With several questions being beyond their purview in the entrance test conducted on June 8, many students say that they have given up hope of getting into Delhi University and will now have to fall back on private universities. Expressing her disappointment, Jain further added,

“I had taken a gap year, and I cannot afford to miss another year. I will probably have to give up on my plans for DU. This is really disappointing.”

Another aspirant, Lisa Kukreja, who graduated with a BA (H) in English from Sri Venkateswara College told TOI,

“The question paper was filled with mathematics-based questions and that too on the lines of what one would expect for RBI entrance or UPSC. DU has obviously been my first preference as it is a leading central university. But with the current status of the exam, I will have to look for a private university.”

Topics like Language Comprehension, General Knowledge and Awareness, Logical Reasoning, Verbal Ability, and Computer Basics were to be covered in the question paper in accordance with the CUET 2023 LLB Syllabus. However, candidates for this programme claimed the otherwise.

Read Also: DU to conduct PhD Admissions via CUET from Academic Year 2023-24.

Image Source: The Hindu

Vanshika Ahuja

[email protected]

Can we ever ascertain if a lawyer defending someone who is guilty is a greedy, cold, criminal or just another person doing their job? It seems impossible because, well, it probably is.

You can never truly anticipate what seemingly mundane events of a regular Wednesday will end up leaving a profound impact on you, which is why it feels strange to write this knowing the inspiration comes from a fight I had with my father. He was just making conversation, getting ready to leave for work when he just happened to say that he had been offered the case of man accused of fowl, inappropriate behaviour. To his surprise, and mine, this somehow sent me into an existential frenzy. Suddenly, I was living a life where my father (a criminal lawyer) was defending, well, criminals. I could not reconcile with the duality of his existence, as my father and as a person who (sometimes) defends bad people. What followed was an argument that fizzled out after the client backed out (and subsequently restored peace in our household).  However, this moment of doubt about whether or not my father’s job was morally unobjectionable made me take a rather hard look at the field of law in its entirety. Are lawyers good people? Is law ethical?

After quite a bit of research, I still have not arrived at a conclusive answer. Ethics are principles that distinguish the good, the bad and the ugly. Laws are, supposedly, enforced to maintain goodwill. Violating a law will land you in jail, which indicate a slender grasp on the whole concept of ethics and good moral values, etc. And yet, in their day-to-day execution and application, law practioners end up at odds with what is ethical and right. As a person on the outside looking in, anyone who is knowingly and willingly defending the honor of a guilty person is clearly in the wrong.

“Presumed innocent until proven guilty”

-Sir William Garrow, 1791

And this is where all the lines start to blur up, because, the undeniable fault of anyone defending someone of a crime they did, in fact, commit, and the right to counsel being universally essential are both simultaneously true. Without a trial, neither innocence nor guilt can be proved and this requires lawyers to rely more on detached pragmatism and professionalism and less on moral ethos. But does that make them bad people?

“The whole foundation of our legal structure is based on the maxim that ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ An advocate, as an officer of the court is bound not only by this but also by the Advocates Act which states that without justifiable cause a counsel shall not refuse brief of any client/litigants/accused on the presumption of him being guilty. Even article 21 of our constitution provides that no person shall be denied right to life or personal freedom with due procedure of law.”

-Adv. Naman Mishra, practicing criminal lawyer, Courts of Delhi

“Public prosecutors are public authorities who, on behalf of society and in the public interest, ensure the application of the law where the breach of the law carries a criminal sanction, taking into account both the rights of the individual and the necessary effectiveness of the criminal justice system”

 To counter the actions of a criminal defendant, we have public prosecutors. Once again, from an outsider’s point of view, someone fighting to attempt the to prove the guilt of someone who could very well be guilty, seems to be the bigger, better person. But this scenario, too, flips, in the case of someone who turns out to have been wrongly accused. Here, our good ol’ criminal lawyer emerges a hero. Neither party can seem to stick to any status for long, and end up oscillating between both.

“As an agent of the judicial process, ensuring that those deserving punishment don’t go scot-free definitely makes you feel empowered and on a higher moral plank but in reality, both me and the defence lawyer are just following what is right and clearly defined in the Advocates’ Act as to what is the role and responsibility of a counsel. This image that a defence lawyer is attempting to prove innocence of the guilty strips away a lot of depth and dynamic from the situation and should be avoided”

-A public prosecutor from Patiala House Court, Delhi, who requested anonymity

While criminal lawyers are the most frequently topics discussions like this, legal players of the corporate should not be overlooked. More often than not, a crime involves two parties. On the other hand, the sheer magnitude of the ramifications of a financial misdemeanour blankets so many parties, it is almost impossible to keep count. The verdicts of such cases tends to put into effect a cycle of betterment or ruination. And again, the character on any lawyer involved gets drenched in a big question mark.

“It is natural to be curious of whether people like me feel guilty at times while defending corporate moneybags who have been accused of crimes like tax evasion, bank loan default, which essentially is public money, and other scams.  Well…..a corporate client is just like any other client be it from a civil dispute or a criminal charge or even family discord. Like all other accused he/she deserves able representing in court of law and all other attributes of a fair trial. To presume that somebody is guilty by virtue of being rich is turning the essence of law upside down and doing grave injustice to this hallowed institution of justice. Yes, as lawyers, we do need to see that we don’t become an instrument in the hands of an accused and an accomplice in any injustice committed but then our education and our training has equipped us with the necessary weaponry to negotiation our way without compromising on professional ethics”

-Sanjay Batra, corporate lawyer, High Court of Delhi

Being a good lawyer demands detachment from any emotive motivations. Being a good lawyer demands that, unless and until you are in a situation where you cannot objectively devote yourself fully to the matter at hand, you cannot refuse someone who approaches you. Being a good lawyer demands that you defend bad people. The only inference that can be derived from this is that for there to be an overlap between good lawyers and good people, the parameters need to be slightly altered.

The primary context of whatever has been said so far is an outsider’s perspective, people for whom incidents like these are mere headlines. When you stand to lose or gain from the verdict of a trial, who is the underdog you root for? Is the person on the stand an innocent victim of circumstance? Or is it someone for whom ‘consequence’ has been interchangeable with ‘money’? Is the public prosecutor truly representing the everyday man, attempting to correct imbalance caused by skewed resources? Or is the criminal lawyer a vigilante of sorts, striving to protect the innocence of an innocent?

“I remember reading about some popular criminal case, people were taking sides and the majority had made up their mind that the defending party is guilty. The outcome of the case was not guilty. Does that mean the defendant was really not guilty or were they just rich enough to afford the best counsel and walk away without a scratch despite being guilty? While we do know that it is a lawyer’s job to provide the right counsel to their client and do their best to prove their innocence, would it be wise for a lawyer to represent a client who they know might be guilty. I am not saying that the lawyers shouldn’t provide representation to people who “seem guilty”, because there might be a chance that they are in fact innocent. Our constitution works on the presumption of innocence, “innocent until proven guilty”, so it is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant’s crime and the defence to prove their client’s innocence. (Something about burden of proof.) There is a very fine line that the lawyer has to tread in this case, and whatever they choose to do, in my opinion, does not say anything about them as an individual as they are just doing their job.

-A second year DU student who requested to remain anonymous

So far, it seems, any lawyer who is true to his profession cannot remain true to his moral values. Then, ideally, the second-best option is to be an ethical lawyer (not person, lawyer). For once, we can consult the conventional mandates of right and wrong without ending ourselves up in an eternal conundrum. The only way someone fighting against the very fundamental of right and wrong can strive for redemption is to be honest in the process. Deal with witnesses fairly, do not tamper with evidence, ensure in any way you can that the integrity of the trial and the investigation isn’t compromised.

While all this would certainly exempt a person from any ethical misdeed on paper, the question of whether lawyers are, in essence, truly good people or instruments of crime and societal menace is something we will continue to wrestle with, at least for the foreseeable future.


Naina Priyadarshi Mishra


Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) organized a joint protest to address the issue of the prospective validity of their law degrees. This issue concerns three centers of the Faculty namely the Campus Law Centre, Law Centre I and Law Centre II.

On December 4, 2019, The Bar Council of India had stated that the approval or recognition of Delhi University’s Campus Law Centre, Law Centre I and Law Centre II, that provide three-year degree course in Law, would last only till the academic year 2016-17. This suggested that only the students who have taken admission till the academic year 2016-17 will have a valid degree in law for the purpose of enrolment as an advocate in any state Bar Council. The administration has not yet come out with any official clarification which has created a sense of panic and anxiety among the students.

Another issue about which the students are concerned is regarding the tender for printing of case materials which has not been issued midway into the ongoing semester. This has caused incalculable loss to students as printed textbooks remain out of bound and has specifically harmed students belonging to the marginalized and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society, many of whom cannot access the case materials even in the digital form.

In the light of the recent events, the students have also raised the issue related to granting extremely low or bare minimum marks to the examinees. The protesting students have demanded that the evaluation parameters should be made transparent and model/sample answers be provided to them so that the students can judge for themselves, the requirements of the examinations. The students have also demanded for their result to be declared without any further delay.

In a press statement, Akshit Dahiya, President, DUSU, said, “Being a student of law at one of the three centres, I completely relate to the grievances of the protesting students. While the fog regarding the issue of the Faculty’s recognition has engendered widespread fear, the unavailability of case materials, being the primary requirement for learning at the Faculty has left the student community helpless and infuriated. We will continue to support this agitation until this basic requirement, the absence of which is disproportionately affecting the marginalised and EWS students, is fulfilled immediately.”

Vinayak Sharma, Convener, ABVP North Campus said, “The administration by failing to fulfil its basic duty to seek timely approval from the Bar Council of India has created widespread fear and panic among the Faculty’s student community. As long as any plausible explanation is not forthcoming, we will continue to struggle on behalf of thousands of such students whose careers have been brought on the edge of the precipice because of the administration’s ineptitude.”

A delegation of protesting students called on the Dean of the Faculty of Law and presented a Memorandum in respect of their demands. While the delegation received assurances regarding the immediate fulfillment of two demands – namely, an official notification regarding the recognition status of the Faculty of Law, as well as the issue of tender for printed case-materials, two other demands – namely transparent evaluation parameters and the declaration of semester results were promised to be discussed by a Committee of teachers to be constituted shortly and consequently met as soon as practically possible.

Image Credits: DU Beat Archives

Prachi Nirwan

[email protected]


The party members of Chathra Yuva Sangharsh Samithi (CYSS) protested in front of the Arts Faculty today. They demanded a reduction of fees and, hostel facilities for the he OBC and EWS category students.

CYSS, the student wing of Aam Aadmi Party, held a protest in the Arts Faculty. The protest began at 11:30 in the morning continued till three in the afternoon. The protest saw many party workers with banners and posters, shouting various kinds of slogans. 

The march was being led by, Delhi-region State President, Mr. Sumit Yadav. The protest was organised against the fee hike in various colleges and the lack of admissions of students of OBC students postgraduate hostels. It aldo focused on the provision of admissions to OBC and EWS category students in law and other postgraduate courses.

The University had recently increased the fee in various colleges like Mata Sundari. The lack of reservations has been an issue in the University of Delhi (DU) hostels where students are given seats on rank and vacancy basis making it impossible for students of reserved categories to secure admissions in hostels.

However, other than these issues, the issue of a young Muslim girl wanting to seek admission was also raised. 

Afshan, a postgraduate aspirant, wanted to seek admission in DU after completing her graduation from Zakhir Hussain College. She believes that she was prohibited from giving her entrance because of her name which indicated she was a Muslim. 

In addressing the gathering and DU Beat, Afshan said in her speech, translated from Hindi here- “I graduated a year back in 2018 from the University, people here say things like ‘Beti Padhao, Beti Bachao’ yet I have been struggling for two years now for getting my admission done. There was a girl in Unnao who was silenced for asking justice and that’s what they are doing to me. I wanted justice for my education and my leg shivers stating what they’ve done to me. I’ve been blackmailed and told they will ruin my documents as well. I filed a complaint, yet there is no investigation. They say they’ll abduct me. I feel shivers down my spine.” 

She later tried to get in the conference hall of the University, yet she was stopped. There were policewomen ready to tackle her. After a long quarrel, she was finally admitted in the conference hall.  

Later, DU Beat interviewed Mr. Sumit Yadav, Delhi-region State President. He stated, “DU is considered one of the best institutions in the country. All the students across the country even people from rural places of Delhi like Najafgarh choose DU because they get a great education at lower price. Now due to privatisation, they’ve increased the prizes. Our party has always been against privatisation and we’ve been raising our voices for the same.”

The various slogans shouted out were “Chhatro par ab reham, karo fees hamari kam karo ( Have some mercy on the students, reduce fees now)” and “Rehne ko awas chahiye humko Chathrawas chahiye (We need shelter to stay, we need students to have homes)”. They also had slogans critiquing the Vice Chancellor’s inability to provide adequate hostel facilities.

The Party members marched towards gate number four but were stopped by the guards and were not permitted to cross. The situation turned hostile when members tried to climb the gates and cross it over. The guards were forced to push them back. 

“We are protesting here against the fee hike in various colleges which has been implemented this year, that is from ten thousand to twenty-five thousand rupees. It deters students from poor backgrounds from courses diversity courses  as they cannot afford such high fees. We are also protesting again courses as of hostel facilities because of which students are exploited by PG owners to pay very high fees,” said Mr. Hariom Prabhakar who is the General Secretary of CYSS, while in conversation with DU Beat.

Feature Image Credits: Stephen Mathew for DU Beat

Stephen Mathew

[email protected]

Chhavi Bahmba 

[email protected]

Student Manmeet Kaur Sareen had filed a plea in Delhi High Court questioning the policy of admission into the Law Faculty of Delhi. Even after the last cut-off list as 233-34 for the unreserved category, seats were left vacant. Ms. Sareen had scored 231 in her LLB entrance exam and there were 14 seats left in total at the three Law Centres.

Law Centre 2 had 7 seats for reserved category and one for a foreign national but after filing for an affidavit, the university declared that these seats won’t be carried forward to the next year.

The following is the rule by the University for reserved category students, ‘The seats reserved for SC/ST shall be filled by SC/ST candidates only. However, in case of non-availability of the eligible candidates, the reserved seats may be interchanged between the SC and ST. If still, any seats remain unfilled, the same shall be left vacant’.

In Justice Indermeet Kaur’s own words, “The ends of justice would definitely not be served if available seats in educational institutions are allowed to go waste; this could also not have been the intention of educational legislators…This would be a denial of opportunity to an otherwise meritorious student…”. to which DU argued that there were 67 students before Ms. Sareen.

The court ordered admission only for Ms. Sareen since only she approached the court and nobody else. She has been given admission at the University’s Law Centre 2.

Image credits: dubeat.com


Prachi Mehra

[email protected]

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a show-cause notice to the Faculty of Law, Delhi University, on account of multiple illegalities, including: students exceeding permissible limits, lack of infrastructure and faculty to name a few. The BCI, which is the apex regulatory authority of legal education in the country, had decided in 2014 to de-recognise DU’s law course due to delay in extension of affiliation of its three law centres: Campus Law Centre, Law Centre-I and Law Centre-II.

This notice has come as a fresh trouble for Law Faculty after another inspection by a committee headed by the former Chief Justice of Patna High Court L. Narasimha Reddy. The panel reported that, the Law Faculty had just 20 classrooms instead of 100 for the 5000-plus strength of students it has. With this, it had been functioning with an ad-hoc faculty for the last 15 years. The college also increased its intake by 54 percent, which is considerably higher in comparison to the permissible 27 percent.

“The panel has stated that the Faculty of Law must arrange for 100 classrooms to accommodate the present strength. This apart from other requirements such as library, tutorial rooms, common rooms, moot courts etc.”, said the BCI communication to the University, as reported by The Economic Times.

The Faculty of Law was granted provisional extension of affiliation in 2014 when DU had proposed to shift to a new building which it claimed had adequate space for the faculty to run properly. However, with the illegalities left un-amended, the Law Faculty has been demanded to come up with quick action to keep the credibility of its course intact.

Image Credits: www.indiatvnews.com

Arushi Pathak
[email protected]

Criminology is a social science that is concerned with the scientific study of crime. A criminologist is a social scientist who specializes in the study and control of crime. Criminologists gather and analyze statistics about crimes and the people who commit them in order to identify patterns of criminal behavior but are not on the front lines fighting crime like police officers.

In India, criminology is a dveloping field. Criminology careers can be divided into three broad categories: Law Enforcement Criminologists, Professors and Academic Researchers, and Correctional Officers and Social Workers. Students who are interested in this field usually study psychology or sociology at the undergraduate level before earning a masters degree in criminology. If one doesn’t end up working directly in criminology, he/she can use the background to work in social services or law enforcement.  NGOs, banks and teaching are good options too.Both undergraduate and postgraduate courses in criminology are offered by various institutes. The basic requirement for getting admission at the undergraduate level is Class 12th with either arts or science and at the postgraduate level is to be graduated with science or arts subjects.

Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science (NICFS) in New Delhi, University of Madras(Chennai),Lucknow University, Banaras Hindu University are some of the institutes that offer  courses on criminology.

Analytical skills, good understanding of psychology, sociology, good data collection ability and an empathetic and sensitive attitude towards the needs of the society and a desire to construct a safe society are the essentials skills of this field.


In a time where most coaching institutes at the school level are looked as money minting machines, this one clearly stands out. Pratham is a coaching institute that specifically caters to preparing students for various entrance examinations at the under graduate level.

Formed in 2009, Pratham is the result of the brain storming of 3 pass-outs of Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business studies. The bedrock of the idea of forming such an institute was to impart education to students that made them look beyond the 2 sides of books and build a smart career by widening their horizon and exposing them to the plethora of career opportunities that today’s world gives them. The International Institute of Financial Markets was formed by these 3 friends in 2008 and Pratham is a brand that functions under the banner.

Pratham aims to facilitate students in making an informed choice post class 12. They organize workshops in schools across Delhi introducing students to the various entrances, like Mass Communication, Law, BBS, BBA, BFIA etc. Pratham has coaching centres all across Delhi, where students are taught not only how to crack these entrances, but also build their personality, suited according to their chosen field of expertise. Pratham’s support to students is not only just limited to teaching how to clear entrances, but they further train you to clear the Group Discussions and Personal Interviews that follow. Such is the track record of Pratham, that in 2011, they had 6 All India Rank 1s, and in 2012 they had 7.

Pratham provides free entrance preparation to students who wish to reappear in the entrance exams, and also to a chosen 10 students. The atmosphere at Pratham is conducive to learning, where the teachers are more like friends, and help students in every way.

Pratham plans to expand its area of working to post graduate entrances like GMAT, SAT, CPT soon.

Visit www.prathamonline.com for further details.