Induction Program - Welcome Speech by Director

Induction Program - Welcome Speech by Director

Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy Sir, respected Shri Prof. (Dr.) R. Venkata Rao Sir, respected Shri Prof. (Dr.) P.M. Nair Sir, my colleague at SIBM Prof. (Dr.) Ravi Kr. Jain Sb, respected Col. B S Bali (Retd) Sb, my colleague Dr. Anuradha Binnuri and Dr. Srinivas Bandimeedi, faculty members, guardians and dear students; What a lovely morning we have to begin the induction program for new students!

I am honored to welcome the chief guest Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, Former Judge Supreme Court of India. We are grateful to you sir, for accepting our invitation and devoting your valuable time from hectic schedule for the students. Your kind words to our students will go a long way in pursuit of their legal studies.

To grace this occasion, who will be better than Prof. (Dr.) R. Venkata Rao, Vice-Chancellor, National Law School of India University, my teacher and Guru, to give advice to my students on the very first day of their new journey. We welcome you, Sir!

We are also privileged to have amongst us, Prof. (Dr.) P. M. Nair, I.P.S., a well-known crusader having mission to end modern-day slavery. Sir, I am personally grateful for your inspiration and support during my research work on the issue relating to human trafficking. Your words of wisdom and courage will encourage our students to work for social justice and help in the attainment of the goal of ‘justice education’. We welcome you, Sir!

I welcome all the parents who have chosen Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, amongst many law schools in the country. Believe me; you have made the right decision for your children’s bright future. We welcome you all.  I also welcome the faculty members, administrative staff, and all students.

Dear students of batch 2019-24, it is my immense pleasure to welcome you all to the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad. I congratulate each and every one of you for having secured a place at this university on merit basis and become part of the Symbiosis family.

Today, being here means that you have opened up a new chapter in your life. Today, being here means you are brave to take up challenges. Today, being here means you are ready to stand up not only for yourself but for others.

Today, my dear students, you have the autonomy to write your own story starting from here. But, how will you do that? This is where Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad is here to help you.

A person learns from the teacher, his/her intelligence, classmates, surroundings, and experience. We at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad dedicate to provide you such a learning environment where you learn and grow as a person in all possible ways.

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad has excellent faculty team with diverse expertise. You have the opportunity to interact with and learn from best legal minds, law teachers, judges, and legal practitioners. We are with you as you would like to become lawyer, or academician, or entrepreneur or any other career you choose for yourself.

Symbiosis Law School is rich in diversity, even more diverse than most of other, top law schools in the country including the NLUs. You now belong to a big group of the student body who are coming from as many as 28 states in the country. In fact, a mini India is what you will be experiencing in this residential school. All the students will get to interact with each other whether it is for the studies, extra-curricular activities or leisure activities. You will also find new friends most of whom would become your friends for the rest of your life. They would be the people with whom you share the memories of your next five years. You have a vast campus with all facilities for a comfortable living and studying environment. We hope that you will have a 'home away from home' experience as the campus has been planned.

The resources provided by the library are huge. Our faculty members and non-teaching staff members work hard with dedication to bring all the best of opportunities in front of you.  Remember, everyone here is chosen. It is your intelligence, talent, your audacity that has brought you here. We value each and every student for who they are and who they are becoming.

Despite the excellent teaching faculty members, administrative staff members, friendly campus environment, it is you, who can help your own learning by making use of this opportunity. And, dear students, that is why I would like to give you some valuable piece of advice before you start this amazing journey.

1. Take responsibility for your learning: As you will experience greater freedom from this point of your life, you should always remember that more responsibilities also come along with it. At Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, we expect you to be self-reliant. This means, you are responsible for what you do. You should ensure that you do what is required of you. Just to name some of your responsibilities - make sure you attend your lectures on time, pay attention in class, maintain discipline, work on your assignments, and so on.

2. Make use of the resources: Be it your teachers, books at the library, or online platforms, make sure you make the most out of your time here. There will be a number of opportunities available for you throughout these 5 years. You must grab them all, give your best and learn from it. Use the resources wisely and responsibly.

3. Embrace the difference: Each one of you is unique. You are different from each other because you came with a different background. In a big institution like this, it is easy for you to stick with what is familiar. But, you will lose the opportunity to know a different person, a different perspective, different ideas, or different interest if you do so. Therefore, I advise you all to mingle with everyone and embrace the differences between you all.

4. Difficulties are good so, face it with a smile: Let me give you an example. When we ride a bi-cycle upward on a slope, it is always difficult. We get tired. We sweat. Our legs hurt. But, imagine riding a bi-cycle down the slope. It is very easy. We move faster. We do not need to put any effort.

When you find it hard to work on that particular assignment, when you find it hard to get that marks you targetted, you must always remember that you are cycling upward. When you face your challenge and continue to work on it without giving up, you are moving forward in your studies. That is the only way you can reach heights. If you feel relaxed, if you are not putting any efforts, it means you are going down and down the slope. So, difficulties are good for you. Face them with a smile.  

Students, the new page in your chapter is blank. I hope you take this advice to your heart and write your own stories by making use of the wonderful opportunity to learn new things, acquire new knowledge, develop new skills, and enhance your personal attributes in a profound way at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

Again, I welcome you all to be part of the Symbiosis family.

Thank you one and all for your presence here today. Thank You.

Welcome address delivered by Prof. (Dr.) Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan, Director, SLSH

Welcome address delivered by Prof. (Dr.) Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan, Director, Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad during the inaugural session of weeklong induction programme on 1st July 2019.

https://youtu.be/X7ct4wCmhk0

Death to Yakub Memon: Should extraordinary rendition be a mitigating factor?

Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan, Research Scholar, City University of Hong Kong

The article of Mr B. Raman, the head of the Pakistan Desk at the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), published on rediff.com adds new dimensions to the Yakub Memon case. It has raised questions about adherence to the principle of fair trial and the rule of law by Indian investigating and prosecuting agency. If Mr. Raman’s statements are true, Memon was informally apprehended in Kathmandu with the help of the Nepal police, brought to India by road and thereafter flown to Delhi by a special aircraft and formally arrested in old Delhi. Mr. Raman, who was coordinating the entire operation, has been extremely courageous to put in writing the details of the operation which exposes the illegality committed by the state agency with far reaching consequences on the human rights of the accused and the international human rights obligation of Nepal. The term ‘extraordinary rendition’ refers to various irregular methods employed by a state to bring individuals from another state disregarding the formal legal process of extradition.  

Nepal has abolished death penalty and for it to send someone to another country without ensuring that death penalty will not be executed amounts to violation of human rights of the accused. It seems that the Indian investigating agency has indulged in extraordinary rendition to do away with the requirement of providing assurance as was given in Abu Salem’s case to Portugal. Indisputably, India can impose death penalty but the accused was brought from a country which has abolished death penalty. Had the due legal process been adhered to, death penalty would not have been awarded. Should the state be disallowed to take advantage of deliberate illegality? Does such illegality constitute a mitigating factor to determine the quantum of punishment? The answer may be ‘yes’ in all probabilities. In Memon’s case the court was kept in the dark about the illegality of the rendition process and this can tantamount to the violation of the principles of fair trial.           

Extraordinary Rendition, a violation of human rights of the accused

An extradition treaty between India and Nepal was signed on 2 October 1953 that obliges the two countries to extradite accused persons found within their territory by following legal procedures. Countries having extradition treaties are bound to extradite accused persons in adherence to the due process of law. Since Nepal has abolished the death penalty, it is undoubtedly obligated not to extradite anyone without ensuring protection to the right to life of such person. There are a few cases of other jurisdictions which explain this obligation. The Judge De Mayer of European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) in Soaring v. United Kingdom (1989) observed that death penalty itself constitutes a bar to extradition unless the requesting state provides satisfactory assurances that the death penalty shall not be imposed or if imposed shall not be carried out.

India is not the only country that brings accused from other countries by the process of extraordinary rendition. In South Africa, once an alleged terrorist of Al-Qaida, Mohamed, was taken away by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from Cape Town with the help of state authorities. The South African Constitutional Court in K. K. Mohamed v. Republic of South Africa (2001) had found such rendition to be violative of the constitutional rights of ‘human dignity, to life and of not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.’ In El-Masri v. Macedonia (2012) ECtHR found the act of handing over the alleged accused to CIA agents by the Macedonian authorities inconsistent with his human rights protection. In another case, officers of the Italian military security services (SISMI) and CIA agents were convicted in Italy on the charge of kidnapping an accused whose rendition was carried out from Milan to Egypt in February 2003 (Tribunale Ordinario di Milano -Sez IV Penale-, Sentenza No 12428/09, 4 November 2009). Subsequently the conviction was set-aside on the ground of state immunity. It is important to understand that rendition may amount to abduction if done without following the due process of law.

Power of Arrest under Indian law

Section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) allows the investigating agency to pursue and arrest any accused only within the territory of India. To bring an offender from another country, orders have to be issued by judicial authority as per Section 105B of the CrPC. Impliedly, the Indian investigating agency has not followed the process prescribed under Section 105B of the CrPC. In such circumstances, Yakub Memon’s lawyer might argue that he was kidnapped from Nepal and kept in illegal confinement till the time he was shown to be arrested. In fact, from the point of time he was under custody till the time he had not been shown to be arrested, he was definitely under wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, both punishable under the Indian Penal Code 1860. His illegal detention also violated his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Although the validity of trial and conviction is not affected by irregularity in arrest, it is a mitigating factor that should be placed before the court.

Consideration for awarding capital punishment

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) the Supreme Court held that death penalty can only be awarded ‘in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.’ In this case the Court further imposed an obligation on the courts to draw up ‘a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances’ and ‘in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage.’ In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) the Supreme Court laid down that court can award death sentence only after ‘according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender.’ The illegal arrest and detention of the accused is one of the mitigating factors which should have been placed before the court but the prosecuting agency with the aim of securing death penalty not only failed to enlighten the court on this point but also made false statements about arrest and custody.

Were all mitigating factors before the court?

Did the court really take into account all mitigating factors before awarding capital punishment? Mr. Raman’s article also informs us that Memon had extended his support during investigation in bringing the other accused to India to face trial, and most importantly helped India to establish before the world community the role played by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, in harbouring terrorism. Mr. Raman argued that the cooperation extended by Yakub Memon is ‘a strong mitigating circumstance to be taken into consideration while considering whether the death penalty should be implemented.’

            The following mitigating factors were, probably, not known to the trial court while awarding capital punishment: (a) Memon was illegally detained in Nepal and brought to India; (b) the investigating agency had kept him under wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement till the time he was shown to be arrested; (c) the action of both India and Nepal resulted in violation of constitutional rights of accused; (d) the state of Nepal failed in fulfilling its legal obligation under international human rights law; (e) the state machinery in the zeal of securing capital punishment violated the international norms by not adhering to the process of extradition; (f) the Indian state machinery did not present the demeanour of the accused and the support extended by him during investigation; (g) the Indian state machinery made false statements about his arrest and detention.       

Moreover, Prof. Surya Deva of City University of Hong Kong has found after analysing 86 cases decided by the Indian Supreme court between January 2000 and October 2011 that the judiciary has applied the principle of ‘rarest of rare’ in ‘quite an inconsistent and arbitrary manner’ and the principle has outlived its utility. In fact, in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) the Supreme Court itself observed that ‘it can be safely said that the Bachan Singh threshold of rarest of rare cases has been variedly and inconsistently applied by the various High Courts’ as well as Supreme Court’. In this backdrop when the absence of minor mitigating factors can change life into death, such nondisclosure on the part of the state before the trial court, in my view, is a serious omission of the investigating and prosecuting agency which not only deprived the accused of fair trail but also prevented the judges from balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine the appropriate quantum of punishment. Such omission can only be rectified if the Supreme Court either remits the case to the trial judge to re-determine the quantum of punishment in light of the facts newly revealed or if it exercises its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to commute death sentence to life imprisonment.

 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-yakub-memon-should-rendition-mitigating-factor-sarfaraz-khan?trk=prof-post

Death to Yakub Memon: Should extraordinary rendition be a mitigating factor?

http://www.legallyindia.com/Blogs/death-to-yakub-memon-should-extraordinary-rendition-be-a-mitigating-factor

Death to Yakub Memon: Should extraordinary rendition be a mitigating factor?

Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan, Research Scholar, City University of Hong Kong

The article of Mr B. Raman, the head of the Pakistan Desk at the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), published on rediff.com adds new dimensions to the Yakub Memon case. It has raised questions about adherence to the principle of fair trial and the rule of law by Indian investigating and prosecuting agency. If Mr. Raman’s statements are true, Memon was informally apprehended in Kathmandu with the help of the Nepal police, brought to India by road and thereafter flown to Delhi by a special aircraft and formally arrested in old Delhi. Mr. Raman, who was coordinating the entire operation, has been extremely courageous to put in writing the details of the operation which exposes the illegality committed by the state agency with far reaching consequences on the human rights of the accused and the international human rights obligation of Nepal. The term ‘extraordinary rendition’ refers to various irregular methods employed by a state to bring individuals from another state disregarding the formal legal process of extradition.  

Nepal has abolished death penalty and for it to send someone to another country without ensuring that death penalty will not be executed amounts to violation of human rights of the accused. It seems that the Indian investigating agency has indulged in extraordinary rendition to do away with the requirement of providing assurance as was given in Abu Salem’s case to Portugal. Indisputably, India can impose death penalty but the accused was brought from a country which has abolished death penalty. Had the due legal process been adhered to, death penalty would not have been awarded. Should the state be disallowed to take advantage of deliberate illegality? Does such illegality constitute a mitigating factor to determine the quantum of punishment? The answer may be ‘yes’ in all probabilities. In Memon’s case the court was kept in the dark about the illegality of the rendition process and this can tantamount to the violation of the principles of fair trial.           

Extraordinary Rendition, a violation of human rights of the accused

An extradition treaty between India and Nepal was signed on 2 October 1953 that obliges the two countries to extradite accused persons found within their territory by following legal procedures. Countries having extradition treaties are bound to extradite accused persons in adherence to the due process of law. Since Nepal has abolished the death penalty, it is undoubtedly obligated not to extradite anyone without ensuring protection to the right to life of such person. There are a few cases of other jurisdictions which explain this obligation. The Judge De Mayer of European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) in Soaring v. United Kingdom (1989) observed that death penalty itself constitutes a bar to extradition unless the requesting state provides satisfactory assurances that the death penalty shall not be imposed or if imposed shall not be carried out.

India is not the only country that brings accused from other countries by the process of extraordinary rendition. In South Africa, once an alleged terrorist of Al-Qaida, Mohamed, was taken away by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from Cape Town with the help of state authorities. The South African Constitutional Court in K. K. Mohamed v. Republic of South Africa (2001) had found such rendition to be violative of the constitutional rights of ‘human dignity, to life and of not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.’ In El-Masri v. Macedonia (2012) ECtHR found the act of handing over the alleged accused to CIA agents by the Macedonian authorities inconsistent with his human rights protection. In another case, officers of the Italian military security services (SISMI) and CIA agents were convicted in Italy on the charge of kidnapping an accused whose rendition was carried out from Milan to Egypt in February 2003 (Tribunale Ordinario di Milano -Sez IV Penale-, Sentenza No 12428/09, 4 November 2009). Subsequently the conviction was set-aside on the ground of state immunity. It is important to understand that rendition may amount to abduction if done without following the due process of law.

Power of Arrest under Indian law

Section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) allows the investigating agency to pursue and arrest any accused only within the territory of India. To bring an offender from another country, orders have to be issued by judicial authority as per Section 105B of the CrPC. Impliedly, the Indian investigating agency has not followed the process prescribed under Section 105B of the CrPC. In such circumstances, Yakub Memon’s lawyer might argue that he was kidnapped from Nepal and kept in illegal confinement till the time he was shown to be arrested. In fact, from the point of time he was under custody till the time he had not been shown to be arrested, he was definitely under wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, both punishable under the Indian Penal Code 1860. His illegal detention also violated his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Although the validity of trial and conviction is not affected by irregularity in arrest, it is a mitigating factor that should be placed before the court.

Consideration for awarding capital punishment

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) the Supreme Court held that death penalty can only be awarded ‘in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.’ In this case the Court further imposed an obligation on the courts to draw up ‘a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances’ and ‘in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage.’ In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) the Supreme Court laid down that court can award death sentence only after ‘according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender.’ The illegal arrest and detention of the accused is one of the mitigating factors which should have been placed before the court but the prosecuting agency with the aim of securing death penalty not only failed to enlighten the court on this point but also made false statements about arrest and custody.

Were all mitigating factors before the court?

Did the court really take into account all mitigating factors before awarding capital punishment? Mr. Raman’s article also informs us that Memon had extended his support during investigation in bringing the other accused to India to face trial, and most importantly helped India to establish before the world community the role played by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, in harbouring terrorism. Mr. Raman argued that the cooperation extended by Yakub Memon is ‘a strong mitigating circumstance to be taken into consideration while considering whether the death penalty should be implemented.’

            The following mitigating factors were, probably, not known to the trial court while awarding capital punishment: (a) Memon was illegally detained in Nepal and brought to India; (b) the investigating agency had kept him under wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement till the time he was shown to be arrested; (c) the action of both India and Nepal resulted in violation of constitutional rights of accused; (d) the state of Nepal failed in fulfilling its legal obligation under international human rights law; (e) the state machinery in the zeal of securing capital punishment violated the international norms by not adhering to the process of extradition; (f) the Indian state machinery did not present the demeanour of the accused and the support extended by him during investigation; (g) the Indian state machinery made false statements about his arrest and detention.       

Moreover, Prof. Surya Deva of City University of Hong Kong has found after analysing 86 cases decided by the Indian Supreme court between January 2000 and October 2011 that the judiciary has applied the principle of ‘rarest of rare’ in ‘quite an inconsistent and arbitrary manner’ and the principle has outlived its utility. In fact, in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) the Supreme Court itself observed that ‘it can be safely said that the Bachan Singh threshold of rarest of rare cases has been variedly and inconsistently applied by the various High Courts’ as well as Supreme Court’. In this backdrop when the absence of minor mitigating factors can change life into death, such nondisclosure on the part of the state before the trial court, in my view, is a serious omission of the investigating and prosecuting agency which not only deprived the accused of fair trail but also prevented the judges from balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine the appropriate quantum of punishment. Such omission can only be rectified if the Supreme Court either remits the case to the trial judge to re-determine the quantum of punishment in light of the facts newly revealed or if it exercises its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to commute death sentence to life imprisonment.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/115453286903130501373/posts

A TRIBUTE TO PROFESSOR D. BANERJEA

 

A Tribute to Professor D. Banerjea

                One of the greatest teachers, whom I had the privilege of meeting,  Prof. D. Banerjea is no more with us. I am one of few fortunate, who got opportunity to work with him very closely as a student, a colleague,  and someone whom I considered to be my real Guru.

                  Sir joined the NUJS shortly after I enrolled at the University as an LL.M student in the year 2000. Thanks to Prof. Dr. Madhava Menon, Prof. Banerjea came to NUJS with decades of experience at  two of the most important administrative academies, namely Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy. His teaching in those two academies greatly influenced some of our top most bureaucrats and senior police officials. His popularity among IAS and IPS is reflected from the fact that even now they enquire about Prof. Banerjea and express their gratitude. I recollect that in the year 2002, I had an opportunity of going with him to Writers Building on University work (For those of you who are not from West Bengal, Writers Building is the head quarters of the West Bengal State  Government). The message that Dada Banerjea (as he was fondly called) was in the  Building spread like fire and Chief Secretaries and Secretaries of almost all departments came out from their chambers and offered Pranaam to Him, (Paying respect to elders by touching their feet). Never have I seen such respect for a teachers and such respect from powerful officials who run the government. Every teacher like me  would hope that someday they can inspire such respect from their students.      

                The first assignment Prof. Banerjea undertook at NUJS, was to trained the newly recruited Judges of West Bengal. This was the beginning of similar projects to be undertaken by NUJS to trained Police Officers, Prosecutors, Magistrates and other Governmental Officers. During his tenure as Principal Coordinator and Head of School of Criminal Justice and Administration,  he always engaged himself in some work or other.  It was solely due to him that the Bureau of Police Research and Development assigned several projects to NUJS. One of the most prestigious projects was the Vertical Interaction Course for senior police officers. Once he left NUJS, we gradually started losing all such projects. Though all the projects were assigned to NUJS because of him, he never took credit for the same. He always worked and believed in team work. The amount of literature he has produced in form of Criminal Justice India Series (more than twenty volumes), Supreme Court on Criminal Justice is unimaginable and he will always be remembered for contribution. In fact we had failed to continue with his legacy.

                I was the biggest beneficiary of his presence at NUJS and got opportunity to enjoy the maximum time with him. While I was his co-teacher, I never found him going to class  unpreparation. He used to make most complex issues seem simple and explain them in a way that most students have not forgotten it to date. This was the reason for the student evaluation of Prof. D. Banerjea to be an example for all of us. It was my  biggest challenge  to cope with the   his students’ demand  when I wassuddenly forced to teach them. This forced me to prepare for even those classes which were supposed to be taken by him as I was always uncertain when he will ask me to take class. At first I felt annoyed but gradually I realized that this was the best training I could get in my teaching career. The way I teach in the class at NUJS, I learnt from Prof. Banerjea and I am highly indebted to him.

                Prof. Banerjea was father figure to all of us at NUJS. Everyone would go to him for advice. He was very friendly with everyone, from the Vice-Chancellor to the security guards at the University. He would ensure that the guards and cleaning staff got sufficient food during any SCJA conference or training. It was his greatness that during lunch session he would personally invite  any such staff who appeared in front of him for lunch.               

His presence at NUJS has benefited every one. If any of us had any difficulty, be it for passport or contacting police or any administration issue, he was always be there to help us. The thing for which we had to run from pillar to post was resolved  by a mere his phone call. Once when we were doing research on a West Bengal Report of Criminal Justice Administration and we needed some statistics from police department. After our all efforts to get the information failed, we asked Sir for his help.  He immediately  called the Commissioner of Police, who happened to be his old student and he ensured that the information reached us in the next few days. His room was always open for everyone.

                Prof. Banerjea was like a saint to me and always blessed me for my endeavor. I remember when I appeared for my interview for  Lectureship at NUJS in  2004, I had just been  awarded the British Chevening Scholarship to study at Essex University. One of the panelist in my interview started questioning me on how I can appointed when I was leaving for UK in the next two months. I was trying hard to convince  them that I would return after my studies and continue at NUJS. Professor Banerjea intervened in a strong tone and reminded the panelist that their duty was  to select an eligible candidate and any future course of action should be decided by the University. Because of his intervention I was  selected by the committee. Even after selection there were challenges,  whether NUJS would grant me leave to go for my studies  or should I leave for U.K. without joining. I decided to go to U.K. leaving things uncertain at the University. At that time, Professor Banerjea was my only hope and I eventually returned to join NUJS

                Professor Banerjea was a perfectionist. He could not tolerate any minor mistake. He was extremely hard working and though I always tried to fulfill his expectations, in reality I failed him many times.  

Sir, you were and will always be a guiding force for me and for thousands of students whose lives your touched.  I always tried hard to fulfill your expectations but failed miserably. Sir, I still I work hard hoping that you would be happy with my work. I will always endeavor to be a teacher like you and even if I have a fraction of your qualities, I will feel like my life is complete. You will forever be remembered by all of us. God give peace to your soul.                     

               

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/for-law-professor-life-turns-full-circle/905168