Gangtok, Sep 11 : Sikkim Government Burtuk Law College students’ demands for better infrastructure are genuine and must be addressed, Student Welfare Board Chairman Shri Sonam Chopel Sherpa said, promising to pursue a permanent solution to the problems at Sikkim Government Law College.
Speaking to the media after interacting with students, Sherpa acknowledged concerns over damp classrooms, water seepage and the condition of a building pillar. He said students pursuing professional legal education deserved suitable facilities and an environment that supported their studies.
Structural Inspection Sought
Sherpa said he had asked the Principal Secretary to arrange a technical assessment following concerns about a pillar with exposed, rusted reinforcement rods.
Acknowledging that he was not an engineer or structural expert, he said the relevant authorities needed to determine whether the affected building was suitable for continued classroom use.
He sought coordination with the Education Department’s engineering cell and the Mines and Geology Department to examine the concerns and assess what infrastructure work could be undertaken.
His remarks did not establish whether the building was safe or unsafe; that determination remained subject to expert assessment.
Roofing Work Cannot Be the Only Solution
According to Sherpa, approximately ₹1.13 crore had been sanctioned for roofing truss work intended to reduce seepage, and the college principal had been informed.
He said work had begun, although its pace needed to improve. He would coordinate with the department and contractor to expedite the process, he added.
However, Sherpa stressed that addressing seepage alone would not resolve the college’s wider infrastructure needs. Options under discussion included improving the existing campus, constructing a new building or exploring relocation.
He also attributed some earlier construction delays to aviation-related clearance requirements arising from the nearby helipad.
Students Asked to Allow Time Until Friday
Sherpa appealed to students to allow time until Friday for technical visits, preliminary groundwork and preparation of a comprehensive response.
He said a meaningful plan required surveys, feasibility checks and coordination among departments. The timeframe he sought concerned assessment and planning, rather than completion of all construction work.
Students should also participate in discussions on the proposed auditorium, classrooms and other facilities so their requirements could inform the planning process, he said.
Differences Over Communication and Written Assurance
Sherpa said students had approached the Principal Secretary but had not previously approached him directly. He maintained that he had nevertheless been raising the college’s concerns with the principal and relevant departments.
According to his account, students were dissatisfied that information about the sanctioned work had been conveyed to the principal rather than communicated directly to them.
He defended communication through the college administration while acknowledging students’ demand for a written, comprehensive assurance. Such a response, he said, needed to be supported by technical findings and a workable plan.
Sherpa also expressed frustration over students’ reluctance to accept his request for more time. Nevertheless, he said he would continue pursuing their concerns even if they chose to continue their agitation.
Reaffirming his commitment, Sherpa said his responsibility was to advocate for students and work towards the infrastructure and quality legal education they deserved.
