r/MahindraUniversity

To be honest, the School of Law has never really had the stability of one proper Dean for even one complete batch.

Not one full batch has had the chance to be guided by a Dean who stayed long enough, understood the students deeply enough, and solved their issues with consistency. We had Sridhar Acharya Sir, one of the founding reasons why the university and the School of Law even stand where they are today. He contributed immensely to the institution, but he had to step away from the position due to health issues. Then we had V. Balakista Reddy Sir, who brought in a slew of changes, including projects carrying 25 marks as internal assessment. Whether everyone liked it or not, it at least had a good academic thought behind it. It made students work, research, write, think, and produce something substantial.

Now we have a new Dean, and again, there is another wave of changes. Every Dean seems to come with his own experiment, his own model, his own system, and his own way of proving that he has arrived. But students are not laboratory rats. We are not raw material to be tested every two years under a new administrative theory.

The new Dean talks about “OBL” — objective-based learning, outcome-based learning, or whatever it is supposed to mean. We do not even know clearly because nobody has properly explained these concepts to us. If this is supposed to transform legal education, then where is the consultation? Where is the orientation? Where is the standard operating procedure? Where is the clarity?

You go to him with a genuine problem, and you get a yelled. You go with a real, practical, painful issue, and instead of a solution, you get gyan. Gyan that does not answer the problem. Gyan that does not understand why students are suffering. It feels like walking on a one-way road: there is no input, no listening, no actual engagement — only output, lectures, and vague wisdom.

And let us not even get started on internal assessment.

There is no standardisation. No uniformity. No clarity. Some random instructions seem to have been given to some teachers, and then every teacher follows their own will. In a premium private university, the least we expect is standardisation. The least we expect is a clear academic policy. The least we expect is that students across sections are treated equally, assessed fairly, and informed properly.

Instead, we are left guessing.

Exam papers are being made three to four times longer than what students can reasonably write. The system of Juno, which the entire university was using, has been removed for us and replaced with Euclid. Unfortunately, some teachers themselves still do not seem fully comfortable using it. So the students suffer again. We suffer because systems change suddenly. We suffer because teachers are not properly trained. We suffer because there is no transition plan. We suffer because nobody has the patience to listen.

This is not how a law school should function.

A law school, of all places, must respect the rule of law. Decisions cannot be taken suddenly, harshly, and without proper consideration of students’ realities. Rules cannot be changed every other day just to show who is in control. Students cannot be spoken to as if they are low-life people who have no dignity, no voice, and no rights.

Let us be very clear: we are paying a very hefty fee for our education. We are not here only to rote-learn what is printed in a textbook. We are here for a complete university experience. We are here to learn law, yes — but also to learn communication, confidence, participation, leadership, friendships, public life, and how to become responsible adults.

Over the years, we have had a ton of teachers come and go. We have had changes in leadership, changes in systems, changes in assessment patterns, and changes in academic expectations. Students have tolerated a lot. Students have adjusted again and again. But there comes a point where adjustment becomes helplessness.

What is shocking is the utter lack of awareness that students are reaching a point where they may feel forced to take their outcry to public platforms. That itself is a shameful affair for any institution. No student wants to publicly speak against their own university. Nobody wants to damage the name of the place they study in. But when students feel unheard internally, public expression becomes the last available route.

There are also rumours and writings circulating among students, even on actual bathroom walls, about the future direction of the School and the kind of faculty appointments that may happen. We do not endorse rumours. We do not believe institutional issues should be reduced to regional identity, language, or community. But the very fact that such rumours are spreading shows the level of mistrust, frustration, and insecurity among students. When communication is absent, rumours fill the vacuum. When transparency is missing, suspicion becomes the language of the campus.

That is exactly why we need clear communication, fair systems, and visible accountability.

We also sincerely request that the language used with students be civil. Phrases like “get out” or “get lost” should never be used by a person holding such a responsible position. Students may be young, frustrated, or imperfect, but they are still human beings. They are still adults. They are still fee-paying members of this institution. They deserve basic dignity.

If speaking to students is such a burden, then let there be a proper student grievance body. Let there be a designated person who is actually willing to listen. If direct interaction with students feels like a chore, delegate that responsibility to someone who has the patience, temperament, and willingness to engage with us respectfully. We would be more than happy to speak to someone who is genuinely willing to listen.

But what cannot happen is this: create a problem, make the system difficult, push students into uncertainty, and then expect every student to come to the cabin at the end of the semester and beg for attendance or beg for permission to write examinations.

That is not administration. That is humiliation.

It feels as if students are being deliberately put in a position where they must plead for what should have been handled through a fair, transparent, and predictable process. You create the confusion, you create the pressure, you create the attendance panic, and then when students come to you helplessly, they are met with attitude. This is counterintuitive. This is high-handed. This feels arbitrary.

The students here are not weak material. In fact, this university has some amazing raw material. Many students come from good schools, with strong communication skills, confidence, exposure, and the ability to explain themselves well. This is exactly the kind of raw material that can be shaped into good lawyers, good advocates, good researchers, and good professionals.

But instead of building on that strength, we are being pushed into a rigid system of rote learning. We are being forced to byheart as much as possible in the name of improving academic standards. Legal education cannot become a memory test. A law student should be trained to argue, analyse, interpret, research, draft, question, and think. But the present system is slowly reducing us into people who are only trying to survive the next impossible paper, the next unclear internal, the next sudden rule, the next attendance shock.

College is not supposed to become a mini Narayana or Sri Chaitanya campus where every form of fun, interaction, individuality, and student life is treated like a crime. We are not school children anymore. We are adolescents becoming adults. We have the right to breathe, to participate, to make mistakes, to grow, and to live a normal college life.

If a student’s attendance is genuinely and abysmally low, the university has every right to take action according to rules. Nobody is denying that. But when students have decent attendance, genuine medical reasons, or legitimate explanations, they cannot be blocked, humiliated, or treated mechanically without compassion or fairness.

There are multiple complaints now. This is not about one student being upset. This is not about one isolated incident. This is about a pattern — sudden changes, lack of transparency, harsh treatment, academic confusion, and an attitude that makes students feel controlled rather than educated.

What is even more unfortunate is that half the block functions outside the law block. We do not even have proper direct access to the Dean on most occasions. For students of a law school, that itself says a lot. If we cannot approach our own academic leadership properly, where exactly are we supposed to go?

We are not asking for free marks. We are not asking to be passed without effort. We are asking for marks that are reasonable, assessment that is fair, and exams that test legal understanding rather than simply punish students for not writing endlessly.

Writing exams cannot be turned into a chore designed to ensure that most students end up with 50 or 60 percent. That does not help the institution. It does not help the students. It does not improve academic standards. It only damages morale, placements, and the reputation of the School of Law.

And placements — let us be honest — are already a serious concern. The School is not helping students strongly enough on that front, and that can be written in golden letters on a copper plate: no real placement support. We understand that reality. But then at least do not damage our marks also. When we go outside and compete for internships, jobs, chambers, firms, companies, or higher studies, our marks matter. If you give students 50 or 60 percent and then expect them to get placed in good offices, it is not going to happen.

You are chopping your own feet with an axe.

A university cannot charge premium fees, provide weak placement support, create unstable academic systems, make assessments unpredictable, and then expect students to quietly accept everything in the name of discipline.

We also cannot ignore the fact that institutional leadership should create stability, not fear. A Dean’s role is not merely to mark territory or prove authority. A Dean is supposed to guide, protect, and build an academic environment where students feel heard, respected, and encouraged. Right now, many students feel the opposite.

A law school must not function on ego. It must function on fairness, reason, due process, transparency, and humanity.

We sincerely hope this phase does not cause long-term damage to students’ academic records, mental health, career prospects, and faith in this institution. We hope the administration remembers that we are students, not enemies. We are stakeholders in this institution. We deserve respect.

And yes, if this is only another two-year stop in someone’s career ladder, then we sincerely hope the next switch comes soon — before more batches are pushed into confusion, uncertainty, and jeopardy.

That is all we are asking for.

Not special treatment.

Not indiscipline.

Not free marks.

Just dignity, fairness, standardization, access, academic sense, and the rule of law.

Separate Note

I have deliberately not taken the Dean’s name anywhere in this note.

This is not because the issues are imaginary, and it is not because students are afraid to speak. It is because the point of this note is not personal targeting. The point is to record the genuine academic, administrative, and student-life concerns that many of us are facing. We do not want this to become a personal attack or something that unnecessarily affects anyone’s future career movement. Our concern is with the functioning of the School of Law, not with destroying anyone personally.

That being said, if internal mechanisms continue to fail, the next possible legal step available to students may be to approach the Hon’ble Telangana High Court through a writ petition. This is something that can be considered collectively, especially if students are being denied examination opportunities, facing arbitrary academic changes, or being affected by decisions that lack fairness, transparency, and due process.

For students who are genuinely interested in exploring this option, names and ID numbers can be shared privately through DMs. The idea is to understand how many students are willing to stand together before taking any formal step.

The matter can be examined in light of the existing legal principles on fairness in educational institutions, natural justice, legitimate expectation, non-arbitrariness, and the student-friendly approach that courts have taken in appropriate cases. Of course, no legal case should be presented as automatically guaranteed, but given the circumstances, there appears to be a strong basis to at least explore legal remedies.

This is not about rebellion.
This is not about disrespect.
This is about dignity, fairness, transparency, and the rule of law.

r/MahindraUniversity

advice

Do yall get any free time?

I got my interview in 2 days. (need help😭)

How long does it take for a response back for the interview?

Super Supples

Exam schedule for CSE

Wtf is wrong with girls hostel

ECE????

ABOUT THE MOU OR TRANSFER PROGRAM (2+2)

Dating in college

is ELT 1 on ground floor or 2nd?

What Is Happening to the School of Law ?????? Attendance issue we are planning to file writ petition.

Academic Survey: LGBTQ Acceptance Among Indian Youth (16–25)

MA1101 SUPPLY

I read the recent post about law school and I’d like to ask, is it stressful?

How's Mahindra for summer internship and accommodation facilities?

abt cutoff percentile for aerospace

will we get A+ grade only if we score about 90?

Attendance

Help me decide between colleges