LexRAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA & ANR. versus NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 299 RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA & ANR. v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1030 of 2020) SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.] National Law School of India Act, 1986 – Admission of students, mode of enrolment – Recommendation of Academic Council – Statutory requirement of – Delay in conduct of CLAT for academic year 2020-21 due to COVID-19 – Initially it was to be held in May 2020 but was eventually postponed to 28.09.2020 – However, respondent no.1-National Law School of India University, Bengaluru (NLSIU) issued notification dated 03.09.2020 for conducting a separate test, National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) through online home proctored examination for admission to its five year integrated B.A.LL.B (Hons.) Programme 2020-21 – Challenged – Held: Respondent No.1 was required by the statute to obtain recommendation of Academic Council before proceeding to hold NLAT by issuing admission notification dated 03.09.2020 – The same having been issued without such recommendation is not in accordance with the provisions of 1986 Act – Notice dated 03.09.2020 as well as Press Release dated 04.09.2020 on NLSIU admission 2020-21 are quashed – Respondent No.3 - Consortium of National Law Universities to conduct the CLAT-2020 examination on 28.09.2020 following the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ministry of Human Resource Development – Respondent No.1 to complete the admission of B.A.LL.B (Hons.) Programme 2020-21 on the basis of result of CLAT-2020 – Constitution of India – Art.14. National Law School of India Act, 1986 – Power of Executive Council u/ss.13 and 10 – Difference between – Discussed. National Law School of India Act, 1986 – Second proviso to s.13(1), (2) – Held: As per sub-s.(2) of s.13, the Academic Council shall have power to propose regulations on all the matters specified [2020] 10 S.C.R. 299 299 A B C D E F G H 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R. in (a) to (h) as enumerated in the second proviso of sub-sec.(1) of s.13 – Thus, the Academic Council can propose regulations regarding mode of enrolment and admission of students also. National Law School of India Act, 1986 – ss.11, 18; Clause 14 of Schedule to the Act – Held: Clause 14 of the Schedule specifically empowers the Academic Council to appoint committees for admission to the school – Thus, the statute contemplated admission to the school under the aegis of Academic Council – Further, s.11 r/w s.18 and Clause 14 of the Schedule clearly provides for role of Academic Council in the admission of students. National Law School of India Act, 1986 – Admission – Power of Academic Council vis-à-vis Executive Council – Discussed. Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 – Consortium of National Law Universities was incorporated as a registered society – Bye-Laws provided each member institution to ensure admission through CLAT – Delay in conduct of CLAT 2020 due to COVID-19 – Respondent No.1, founder member of the Consortium issued notification for conducting separate test – Respondent No.1 if bound by Bye-Laws – Held: Even though obligations on members of Consortium under the Bye-Laws are not statutory obligations but are binding on the members – Being member of the Consortium, respondent no.1 ought not to have proceeded with holding a separate test – National Law School of India Act, 1986. Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of necessity – When not applicable – Delay in conduct of CLAT for academic year 2020-21 due to COVID-19 – Eventually postponed to September 2020 – However, Respondent No.1 issued notification for conducting separate test contending that it became a sheer necessity – Held: Academic year 2020-21 not required to be declared as zero-year even if the course starts in the mid of October, 2020 – UGC having contemplated for amending the academic year, Doctrine of Necessity does not arise. Disposing of the matters, the Court HELD: 1. QUESTION NO.1 Whether the petitioners have locus to file the writ petition? A B C D E F G H 301 The petitioner No.1 in the writ petition has pleaded that he is parent of a CLAT 2020 aspirant, who also seeks to represent various such similarly placed students across the nation, who are aggrieved. Even though with regard to petitioner No.1, details of his ward has not been given except that petitioner No.1 is a parent of CLAT 2020 student but in view of the credentials of pet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.