There is growing support for law schools to enhance their curricula by integrating and prioritizing the teaching of mediation and negotiation skills. Experts argue that these competencies are essential for modern legal practice, yet they often receive insufficient focus in traditional law school programs. By emphasizing these skills, law schools can better prepare students for the evolving demands of the legal profession, where resolving disputes outside of court is increasingly valued.

Mediation and negotiation are integral parts of the legal landscape, particularly as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods continue to gain prominence. These skills enable lawyers to facilitate amicable agreements between parties, saving time, money, and resources compared to lengthy courtroom battles. However, many law schools have traditionally concentrated on litigation and the theoretical aspects of law, often neglecting the practical, hands-on skills required to mediate and negotiate effectively.

Experts suggest that incorporating mediation and negotiation into law school curricula can provide students with a well-rounded education, blending both the legal theory and the practical tools necessary for successful legal practice. Mediation, in particular, is viewed as an effective method for resolving disputes in a way that benefits all parties involved, making it a critical skill for lawyers to master.

Some law schools have already begun to adopt innovative teaching methods to enhance their students' mediation and negotiation abilities. These methods include role-playing exercises, simulations, and real-world case studies that allow students to practice these skills in a controlled, supportive environment. Such approaches not only teach theoretical knowledge but also equip students with practical experience in handling complex negotiations and mediations.

By elevating mediation and negotiation skills within the curriculum, law schools can better prepare students for the multifaceted nature of modern legal practice. This shift can empower the next generation of lawyers to become more effective problem-solvers, helping clients reach resolutions that are mutually beneficial and avoiding the time and costs associated with litigation.

As per Bar and Council reports, as the legal field increasingly values dispute resolution outside the courtroom, it is essential for law schools to prioritize the teaching of mediation and negotiation skills. This shift in focus will equip future lawyers with the tools they need to thrive in an ever-evolving legal landscape, ultimately benefiting clients and society as a whole.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the Supreme Court today that the trial of the rape and murder case of a trainee doctor at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College is likely to conclude within a month. The trial, which is being held in a Special CBI Court in Sealdah, has made significant progress, with 43 out of 81 prosecution witnesses already deposed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, stated that the court is conducting hearings four days a week, and expressed satisfaction with the trial's pace. The court has been monitoring the progress closely, and there is hope for an expedited conclusion.

The tragic incident, which occurred on August 9, 2018, led to the transfer of the case from the Kolkata Police to the CBI, after concerns were raised about the handling of the investigation. The CBI’s chargesheet identified Sanjay Roy, a civic volunteer, as the prime accused in the crime.

In addition to the ongoing trial, the CBI also shared updates regarding a separate investigation into financial irregularities at RG Kar Medical College, which has led to a chargesheet. However, prosecution sanction for this aspect of the case is still pending from the state government.

Meanwhile, advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the victim's family, urged the court to include individuals allegedly involved in the cover-up of the crime in a supplementary chargesheet. The Supreme Court has also been reviewing the progress of a National Task Force (NTF) set up to propose measures for the safety of medical professionals, with a final report expected within 12 weeks.

The next hearing is scheduled for March 2025, although an earlier date could be set if the trial faces delays. The Supreme Court has also called on states to improve measures against gender-based violence and enhance safety protocols for healthcare workers.

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition challenging the results of the CLAT PG 2025 examination, advising the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court for further action. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, dismissed the plea filed by Anam Khan and Ayush Agarwal, who had raised objections to the provisional answer key released on December 2.

The petitioners had claimed that the answer key contained errors in 12 questions, and they also objected to the short, one-day window provided for raising objections. Additionally, they criticized the Rs 1,000 fee per objection as excessive. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these concerns, with the Chief Justice stating that the Rs 1,000 fee per objection was "not a big deal."

In its ruling, the court emphasized that it could not intervene as the court of first instance in such matters, stressing the importance of timely release of examination results. The bench raised concerns about the potential delays that could be caused by the apex court's involvement in such cases.

With the petition now dismissed, the petitioners have been advised to take their grievances to the Delhi High Court. The move highlights the judicial preference for allowing the High Court to address issues related to the examination, leaving the Supreme Court to focus on matters of national significance.

The decision comes as a setback for those challenging the CLAT PG 2025 results, but the path is still open for legal recourse through the High Court. This development underscores the importance of following proper legal channels and the need for timely resolution of disputes in academic examinations.

The Supreme Court of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to ensure the timely and fair processing of mercy petitions in death penalty cases. This move aims to prevent delays and safeguard the constitutional rights of death row inmates.

The guidelines specifically assign responsibilities to state governments, union territories, and sessions courts, setting clear protocols for the handling of mercy petitions. State Home or Prison Departments are now required to create dedicated cells tasked with managing mercy petitions. These cells will streamline the process and ensure a swift response.

A prescribed timeframe has been set for processing mercy petitions, ensuring that these petitions are handled without unnecessary delays. The guidelines mandate that records be maintained accurately and that death penalty cases be listed promptly in sessions courts to avoid procedural holdups. It requires state public prosecutors and investigative agencies to be notified about the status of appeals, reviews, or mercy petitions, ensuring transparency and accountability.

The Supreme Court has emphasized the urgent need for the expeditious processing of mercy petitions, underlining that death row convicts must not be subjected to undue delays in their legal proceedings. The court reminded the executive authorities of their duty to process these petitions in a timely manner, reiterating that unnecessary delays could infringe upon the convict’s constitutional rights.

This significant step underscores the importance of ensuring justice is not only fair but also timely. The Supreme Court's move is seen as a crucial effort to prevent the prolonged suffering of death row inmates while maintaining the integrity of the legal system. By enforcing these guidelines, the court aims to ensure that justice is served without unnecessary delay, upholding the constitutional rights of individuals, even those facing the death penalty.