By Chiranjeev Singh
---
Citation: WP (Civil) 1030 of 2020
Act: National Law School of India University Act 1986
Principle: NLS directed to conduct its admission process through CLAT and not allowed to conduct a separate entrance exam
Facts
National Law School India University, Bangalore (NLS) is a premier law university offering a five-year LLB course and was established by the Karnataka State Government through the National Law School of India University Act 1986 [the NLS Act]. In 2007, the Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of various National Law Universities (NLUs), including NLS, signed a Memorandum of Understanding that they will conduct a common admission test, namely the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). Since 2008, all the UG and PG admissions in these NLUs have been conducted through CLAT. With the increasing number of NLUs, a Consortium of NLUs was formed in 2019 with its secretariat at NLS, and it was registered under the Karnataka Registration of Societies Act 1960.
Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, the CLAT 2020 exam, which was initially supposed to be held on 10th May 2020, was postponed several times. In August, two meetings of the Executive Council (EC) of NLS were held wherein it was decided that the admission process should be completed in September as there was a risk of a 'zero year'. Additionally, it was decided that if CLAT did not occur on 7th September (date of the CLAT examination when the meetings happened), the NLS VC had the power to conduct a separate entrance examination for the UG and PG programmes. Due to the floods in Bihar and the lockdown in West Bengal, the Executive Committee of the Consortium on 28th August decided to postpone CLAT to 28th September. With this postponement, NLS issued an admission notification on 3rd September 2020 which stated that the University would conduct its own entrance examination for admissions in the UG and PG programmes, namely National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT), on 12th September. The NLAT exam would be home-based and online proctored, in contrast to the centre-based online mode of examination of the CLAT.
Aggrieved by the sudden admission notification, the father of a CLAT Aspirant and a previous Vice-Chancellor of NLS have filed Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, demanding that the impugned notification be quashed as it runs afoul of the NLS Act, and the bye-laws of the Consortium of NLUs (bye-laws).
Issues for consideration
- The parties before the Court raised various arguments. Even though there was a preliminary objection raised by the Respondents that the Petitioners lack the locus for filing the present writ petition, the same was summarily dismissed and the crux of the dispute hinged on the following three issues:
- Whether the admission notification was issued by the competent authority following the process laid down by the NLS Act?
- In any case, whether the notification violated NLS's obligation, if any, under the bye-laws of the Consortium of NLUs to conduct UG and PG admissions through CLAT?
- Further, whether a home-based online exam would ensure fairness, transparency and the integrity of the examination?
Admission Notification and the Provisions of the NLS Act
As has been mentioned above, the decision to conduct a separate entrance examination was made based on the 2 EC meetings, where the EC gave the VC the power to take all necessary measures for avoiding a zero year, and to conduct a separate entrance examination if CLAT is postponed again. The Petitioners contended before the Court that as per the NLS Act, any decision regarding the admissions to the University have to be taken with the concurrence of the Academic Council (AC), and the EC is not competent to take decisions regarding the admissions without such concurrence. As the same was not taken in the instant case, the notification violates the NLS Act and is subsequently void. The Respondents on the other hand contended that the EC is the Chief Executive Body of the University in charge of its administration, and according to judicial precedent, administration of a University includes the power to decide the mode of admission.
The Court, while agreeing with the principle stated by the Respondents, observed that in the present case, the statutory scheme of the NLS Act has to be looked into for finding a definite answer. Through its perusal of the Act, the Court notes that Section 13 of the Act clearly states that the EC cannot modify any regulations regarding the mode of admission of students without the concurrence of the AC.
The Respondents further argued that since no such regulations have been framed by the AC, as in the present case, the concurrence of the AC is not required. The Court negatived this argument by stating that such an interpretation would go against the object of the Act, which through its various provisions gives prominence to the AC to take decisions regarding the admissions to the University. Even in the absence of any regulations, if the EC decided to use its executive power for providing a separate entrance examination, the recommendation of the AC had to be obtained, which was not done in the present case. As a result, the notification violated the NLS Act.
Obligation under the bye-laws of the Consortium
The bye-laws of the Consortium state that the Consortium will provide a platform for the common admission to the UG and PG courses in all NLUs if they become a member of the Consortium. Further, they state that it is the obligation of all the members of the Consortium to reflect the core values and standards set by the Consortium. The Petitioners contended that NLS being a founding member of the Consortium, violated the bye-laws by holding the NLAT exam. The Respondents, at the same time, argued that the autonomy of the University is protected by the bye-laws themselves, and as a result of which it can hold a separate entrance examination.
The Court at the outset rejected the argument that the autonomy of a member institute allows it to hold a separate entrance examination. It held that by being a member of the Consortium, NLS had bound itself with the obligations in the bye-laws which require that admissions to the member institutes have to be made through CLAT. By holding NLAT, NLS violates this binding obligation. Further, the Court held that holding a common entrance test does not impact the autonomous character of a University.
Possibility of a 'Zero Year'
The Respondents argued that due to the trimester system of the University, unless the admissions are completed through NLAT, the University would face a Zero Year by not maintaining the requisite number of teaching hours. Hence, the obligations under the bye-laws were violated as a matter of necessity.
The Court again rejected this argument by stating that the current academic session is not a regular session due to the exceptional circumstance created by the Pandemic. The University Grants Commission itself recognises the peculiarity of the present times and has allowed the Universities to tweak their academic calendars accordingly. The Court states that the University can very well find other ways and means to adjust its trimester system to avoid a zero year and, as such, the doctrine of necessity does not arise.
Nature of the Exam
As per the notification, NLAT was to be held as a home-based online exam. The technical requirements for the exam were quite onerous as a result of which only 23,000 people appeared for the exam whereas the number of students registered for CLAT is around 70,000. The Petitioners contended before the Court that such a type of exam is inherently unfair and opaque. Interestingly, the Petitioners relied on an affidavit filed by the VC of NLS in a separate case before the Delhi HC, where he had raised various issues regarding a home-based online examination and its inherent exclusionary impact, to contend that NLAT will not be fair and transparent. The Court, while agreeing with the contention that such an exam will be unfair, remarks as to how in the matter of one week the NLS VC went from criticising a home-based online examination model to prescribing the same for conducting the NLAT exam in the admission notification.
Conclusion
The Court held
that impugned notification violates the NLS Act and the bye-laws of the
Consortium. The argument regarding a possible 'zero year' was also negatived.
The Court went further and held that in any case, a home-based online exam
would not have ensured fairness, transparency and the integrity of the
examination. Thus, the notification stands quashed and NLS is directed to
conduct its admission through CLAT.
---
Chiranjeev Singh is a 2nd year law student at National Law University Delhi. He loves to read about various topics of law, polity and economics. His inclination is towards exploring the various issues revolving around criminal justice administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment