SHC directs Karachi University to discontinue its doctorate in law programme

The Sindh High Court has directed Karachi University to discontinue the doctorate in law programme at the university forthwith until such time as it satisfies the requirements and obtains a no-objection certificate from the Higher Education Commission (HEC).

The order came on identical petitions filed by M Saeed Shahzad and others in which they challenged the standing of the KU to conduct a doctoral programme in the field of law on the ground that it failed to meet the basic criteria prescribed in this regard by the HEC, including the quality of its faculty.

Issuing an order in the matter, a high court division bench comprising chief justice Ahmed Ali M Sheikh and Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed observed that the HEC had been directed to scrutinise the affairs of the law department of the university which conducted the exercise and submitted its report.

The fact-finding report had revealed that no full time/permanent PhD faculty member was hired for teaching and conducting research of PhD law programme, which is a sheer violation of HEC rules.

The report stated that the total number of 71 students have been enrolled in the PhD programme during the year 2014 to 2020; however, the record/proof of PhD admission tests conducted by the KU was not available in the students’ files. The report stated that this fact demonstrated that the results of admission tests are not properly maintained by the KU.

The report further said that no written test for admission in the PhD programme was conducted by the KU in the year 2020 and the students were enrolled on the basis of the interview only.

The fact-finding report stated that law school was not able to present any record with regard to the conduct of course work and comprehensive examination of the PhD. students. It stated that as per HEC guidelines, the course work of 18 credit hours preferably in the first year is required to be completed and followed by a comprehensive examination for granting candidacy as PhD researcher.

The HEC report stated that educational documents of the enrolled students were not verified/attested and equivalence certificate of some foreign LLM degrees were found missing.

The fact-finding committee also found that the existing infrastructure needs renovation in order to provide a conducive learning environment to the students and observed that departmental library contains around 3,000 books which are barely sufficient for the academic needs of the students.

The HEC committee had recommended that the KU should halt all its all activities of PhD law programme, including conduction of classes, holding of examination, thesis defence and award of degrees.

The KU was further advised to strictly comply with HEC policies as defined in PhD admission criteria, faculty appointment, curriculum, semester system guidelines and also maintain student teacher ratio regarding PhD supervision notified from time to time in letter and spirit.

The HEC committee observed that the admission test for the session 2020 was not conducted as per HEC guidelines; therefore, it recommended that the admission in PhD law for the abovementioned session may be cancelled, and the fresh process of admissions be announced once all the required standards and criteria are met as prescribed by the HEC.

The court observed that the representatives of the HEC emphasized that the university remained non-compliant and that in the absence of the requisite remedial measures to ensure compliance with the applicable rules/regulations and policies, the degrees issued by the university in relation to the programme would not be recognised and attested by the HEC.

The registrar and director (legal) of the university acknowledged that whilst the findings of the HEC were relevant and applicable, the discrepancies identified in the report had existed since the inception of the programme and continued to subsist. They however sought to justify the absence of PhD faculty members by submitting that various initiatives had been taken to recruit persons possessing the required academic qualifications, but such endeavors had failed to yield any positive results to date.

The KU counsel sought to impugn the bona fides of the petitioners by arguing that they had been actuated by malice due to having been declined admission to the programme, rather than out of a genuine desire to advance the public interest.

The court observed that the HEC has inter alia been entrusted with the power and function to formulate policies and guidelines for higher education institutions and prescribed conditions under which they may be opened and operated, as well as to evaluate their performance.

The court observed that it is apparent that the programme cannot be continued whilst the university consistently fails to meet the relevant requirements and obtain a NOC from the HEC in this regard.

Regarding the concern of the PhD students who became intervenors in the case, the court observed that the weight of intervenors’ numbers do not alter the fact that the discrepancies identified by the HEC go to the root of the matter and no useful purpose would be served if the programme were allowed to continue due to misplaced notions of hardship when the degrees issued in relation thereto would not be recognized or attested.

It further observed that if the intervenors have been induced into enrolling in the programme on the basis of non-disclosure or misrepresentation on the part of the university, they remain at liberty to seek compensation by way civil actions before the competent court having jurisdiction

over the matter.

The court disposed of the petitions and directed the KU to discontinue the doctorate programme in the law forthwith until such time as it satisfies the requirements and obtains a NOC from the HEC.