# RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA & ANR v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [2020] 10 S.C.R. 299
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-09-21
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M. R. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rakesh-kumar-agarwalla-anr-v-national-law-school-of-india-34464
- **Pages:** 64

## Headnote

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 se

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 150,699. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

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 petitioner
No.2, the writ petition is fully maintainable at his instance. The
affidavit in support of the writ petition has been sworn by
petitioner No.2. A common rejoinder affidavit has also been sworn
by petitioner No.2. The Memorandum of Association of
Consortium of National Law Universities, which is a registered
society under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960
registered on 26.03.2019 contains a list of Initial Members
Subscribers of the Consortium in which name of petitioner No.2
was mentioned as Member Subscriber No.1. Petitioner No.2 being
Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.1 became the ex-officio
Secretary Treasurer of the Society, his details are also mentioned
in paragraph 7 of the Memorandum. A person, who has worked
as Vice-chancellor of respondent No.1 and was also member of
Consortium, which is entrusted to conduct CLAT, he is fully
competent to espouse the cause of education by means of the
writ petition. Thus, the objection of the respondent that
petitioners have no locus to file the writ petition is rejected.
Alongwith the writ petition a Special Leave Petition (C) No.11059
of 2020 has been listed, which has been filed by five petitioners,
who were candidates for CLAT 2020-2021. The admission notice
dated 03.09.2020 was challenged by them by means of a Writ
Petition (C) No.2454 of 2020 in High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi, which writ petition was dismissed. Challenging which
judgment, they have filed the aforesaid special leave petition.
The aforesaid five petitioners have also filed an application I.A.
No. 91083 of 2020 in Writ Petition (C) No.1030 of 2020 to
intervene in the matter, they being affected and aggrieved persons
by the notice dated 03.09.2020. Those students, who are
aggrieved by the admission notification dated 03.09.2020 are also
before this Court. Thus, issues raised have to be decided on
merits rejecting the objection of respondent No.1 regarding locus.
[Paras 29, 32-35][329-B, F-H; 330-C-H; 331-A-B]
RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
2.1 QUESTION NO.2
Whether the admission notification dated 03.09.2020 by
respondent no.1 could have been issued only after
recommendations to that effect by the academic council, which is
the statutory authority under the act, 1986 for admission of the
students to the five year integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
Programme 2020-2021?
National Law School of India Act, 1986 was enacted to
establish and incorporate National Law School of India University
at Bengalore (now Bengaluru). Under Section 8, authorities of
the schools have been enumerated, which includes the Executive
Council as well as the Academic Council. Section 10 deals with
the Executive Council. Section 11 of the Act deals with Academic
Council. The Executive Council is empowered to frame
Regulations to provide for the administration and management
of the affairs of the school under Section 13 of the Act. Section 18
deals with authorities and officers of the school, their composition,
powers and functions, subject to the provisions of the Act have
been specified in the Schedule or as may be provided by the
Regulations. The Schedule provides for Membership of the
Executive Council, Term of the Executive Council and powers
and functions of the Executive Council. Clause 9 of the Schedule
provides for powers and functions of the Executive Council.
Clause 13 deals with membership of the Academic Council and
Clause 14 provides for powers and duties of the Academic Council.
[Paras 38-43][331-G-H; 332-B, E; 334-B, D-E; 336-C]
2.2 There can be no dispute that Executive Council is the
Chief Executive Body of the school and the administration,
management and control of the school is vested in the Executive
Council and in the administration, right to admit the students is
included but the Statute has to be further looked into to find out
as to whether there are any other statutory provisions to regulate
the admission of students or there is any other authority of the
school, which is vested with the power to take decision regarding
admission of the students. Power under Section 13 empowering
the Executive Council to frame regulations and power under
Section 10 to administer, manage and control the school are two
separate powers and even though the regulations have not been
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
303
framed under Section 13 regarding admission of the students,
the Executive Council can very well exercise its power under
Section 10 to administer, manage and control the affairs of the
school. However, the provisions contained in Section 13 throw
considerable light on the statutory scheme. The second proviso
providing for prior concurrence of the Academic Council on
enumerated subjects including "mode of enrolment and admission
of students" has been provided for since under the Scheme of
the Statute it is the Academic Council which has been empowered
to take decisions regarding mode of enrolment or admission of
students. The above restriction in regulations making power of
the Executive Council has been engrafted with purpose and object.
The subjects which are mentioned under second proviso where
prior concurrence of the Academic Council is required are all
matters which are in domain of the Academic Council, thus, even
though strictly second proviso of Section 13(1) is not attracted
when no regulations have been framed by the Executive Council
but the object and purpose for conditioning the exercise of
regulation making power of the Executive Council cannot be lost
sight. Sub-section(3) of section 13 also contains a special provision
which provides that where the Executive Council rejects the draft
of a regulation proposed by the Academic Council, the Academic
Council may appeal to the Chancellor and the Chancellor, may,
by order, direct that the proposed regulation may be laid before
the next meeting of the General Council for its approval and
pending such approval of the General Council it shall have effect
from such date as may be specified in that order. Thus, Academic
Council regulations which even though rejected by the Executive
Council can be allowed to operate by Chancellor and required to
place before General Council for approval and after approval it
shall be operated. The above provision indicates that in certain
matters the recommendations of the Academic Council has been
given prominence and as per sub-section(2) of Section 13, the
Academic Council shall have the power to propose regulations
on all the matters specified in (a) to (h) as enumerated in the
second proviso of sub-section(1) of Section 13. Thus, Academic
Council can propose regulations on mode of enrolment and
admission of students also. [Paras 46, 50][338-E-F; 341-F-H; 342A-F]
RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
2.3 Section 18 of the Act provides that composition, powers
and functions of the authorities of the school subject to the
provisions of the Act shall be as specified in the Schedule. Clause
14 of the Schedule to the Act provides "subject to the provisions
of this Act and the regulations, the Academic Council shall, in
addition to all other powers vested in it, have the powers as
enumerated in Clauses 14(7), 14(11) and 14(16). The said
provisions in the Schedule specifically empower the Academic
Council to appoint the committees for admission to the school.
Admissions to the school, thus, were contemplated to be under
the control of Academic Council and the appointment of
committees was with the purpose to monitor and conduct the
admission of the school. When the Act was enacted in 1986, no
procedure was in place regarding admission and the Statute
empowered the Executive Council to appoint committees for
admission to the school. By virtue of Clause 14(16) with regard
to appointment of committees for admission to the school, the
Academic Council was to perform "all such duties and to do all
such acts as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the
provisions of the Act". Thus, the above statutory provision gave
all incidental power to the Academic Council in relation to the
admission. [Paras 51, 52][342-G-H; 343-C-E]
2.4 The powers given to the Executive Council under
Clause 9 can be divided in three parts (i) sub-clauses (1), (2), (3)
& (9) relates to appointment and service conditions; (ii) subclauses (4), (5), (6), (7) & (8) relating to finance and properties
and (iii) other contains clauses (10), (11) and (12). Clause (11)
empowers the Executive Council to select a common seal for
the school and sub-Clause (12) is a general power providing that
Executive Council to exercise such other powers and to perform
such other duties as may be imposed. While referring to power
of the Academic Council given in clause 14 sub-clause (11), which
empower the Academic Council to make arrangements for the
conduct of examinations and to fix dates for holding them, it is
submitted that the said power relate to conduct of examination of
various courses, which are run by the school. Sub-clause(10) of
Clause 9 of Schedule has to be, thus, also read to mean that
appointment of examiners and moderators is with regard to
courses run by the school. It is relevant to notice that even the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
305
power to appoint examiners and moderators is with the condition,
i.e., "after consulting the Academic Council". When appointment
of examiners by the Executive Council is by consultation of the
Academic Council, how can in the mode and manner of the
admission of the students, the Academic Council can be ignored.
The Statutory Scheme of the Act, thus, indicates that there is no
specific power given to the Executive Council with regard to
admission of students except the general power of the Executive
Council as contained in Section 10 whereas the statutory provision
of 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. Sub-clause (7) of Clause 14 read with subclause (16) of clause 14 of Schedule clothes the Academic Council
with all powers including mode and manner of admission of the
students. Section 11 of the Act also needs to be referred to.
Section 11 of the Act provides that Academic Council shall be
the academic body of the school and shall have power of control
and general regulation of, and be responsible for the maintenance
of standards of instruction, education and examination of the
school. Section 11 used the three expressions namely "power of
control", "general regulation of" and "be responsible". The
expressions used in the Section 11 are "maintenance of standards
of instructions, education and examination of the school. It is
now settled law that the standards of education include admission
to the course. When the Academic Council has been given power
of control, general regulations and is responsible for maintenance
of standards of instruction, education and examination of the
school, its one of the functions, undoubtedly is to regulate the
admission of students. Reading of Section 11 with Section 18 and
clause 14 of the Schedule clearly provides for role of Academic
Council in the admission of students. [Paras 53, 55, 56][343-FG; 344-A-G; 345-C]
Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors.,
(1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249 -
followed.
2.5 At this stage, the meeting of the Executive Council
dated 29.08.1987 and 30.08.1987 may also be referred to. The
RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
proceedings have been brought on the record alongwith the
counter affidavit of respondent No.1. Item No. 16 of the meeting
dealt with selection of students. The resolution of the Executive
Council indicates that it was a draft proposal of the Academic
Council regarding admission test, which was approved by the
Executive Council. The next following sentence in the resolution
is relevant "the procedure for admission test and the selection
may be decided by the Academic Council and implemented by
the Director". The respondent No.1 himself has brought on the
record the proceedings of the meeting of the Academic Council
dated 12.12.1987 as Annexure R-1/2 where the mode of selection
of the students to the LL.B. Programme was provided for. Thus,
the above proceedings of Executive Council and Academic
Council itself make it clear that the Executive Council was of the
opinion that it is the Academic Council who is statutory authority
regarding mode and manner of the admission of the students in
LL.B. course. The above proceedings of the Executive Council
dated 29.08.1987 and Academic Council dated 12.12.1987 fully
support the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that it is the Academic Council who is empowered under the
statute to take a resolution regarding admission of the students
in the LL.B. Course. The authorities of the University exercise
powers and functions as entrusted to them in the Statute. [Paras
57-59][345-C; 346-B-F]
Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao
Chavan (1989) 3 SCC 132 : [1989] 2 SCR 454 - relied
on.
2.6 It is, however, made clear that Executive Council in its
resolution dated 12.08.2020/18.08.2020 in exercise of general
power of administration could have very well taken any resolution
regarding completion of admission process but for implementing
the decision of 12.08.2020/18.08.2020 of the Executive Council
recommendation of Academic Council was required to be obtained
regarding mode and manner of conducting separate admission
tests by respondent No.1. The recommendation of Academic
Council was necessary to be obtained for holding a separate entry
test namely NLAT especially when respondent No.1 was
proposing to hold the above test instead of admitting the students
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
307
by CLAT from which common law admission test, admission in
LL.B. course was being done for last more than a decade. When
the respondent No.1 wanted to conduct NLAT as online home
proctored test of 45 minutes containing 40 questions which mode
and manner was different from earlier prescriptions, the
recommendations of Academic Council were must. On 18.08.2020
the Executive Council unanimously reaffirmed its resolution taken
on 12.08.2020 to empower the Vice-Chancellor and the University
to conduct an independent admission process in the event that
CLAT 2020 is delayed further. The resolution was empowering
the Vice-Chancellor to take all necessary steps. All necessary
steps have to be understood as steps which are required to be
taken as per the statute. When the Act, 1986 empower the
Academic Council to take decision regarding admission of the
students in LL.B. Course and with regard to mode and manner
of conducting the admission test, it was obligatory for the ViceChancellor to have obtained the recommendations of the
Academic Council. The Vice-Chancellor himself is the Chairman
of the Academic Council and there was no difficulty and with
regard to meetings of the Academic Council Clause 15 sub-clause
(6) provides that if urgent action by the Academic Council
becomes necessary, the Chairman of the Academic Council is
empowered to permit the business to be transacted by circulation
of papers to the members of the Academic Council. Thus,
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. Thus,
admission notification dated 03.09.2020 issued by respondent
No.1 could not have been issued without obtaining the
recommendation to this effect by the Academic Council.
Admission notification dated 03.09.2020 having been issued
without recommendation of Academic Council is not in
accordance with the provisions of Act, 1986 and is unsustainable.
[Paras 60-62][347-C-E, H; 348-A-E]
3.1 QUESTION NO.3
Whether the respondent No.1 being founder member of
Consortium of National Law Universities, a registered society,
is bound by its Bye-Laws and was obliged to admit the students
RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
for integrated B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) Programme through CLAT
2020?
A Memorandum of understanding was signed by seven, then
existing National Law Universities on 23.11.2007 to hold the
Combined Admission Test to be organised by NLU on rotation
basis on the basis of seniority. In November, 2014, in a meeting
of Vice-Chancellors of National Law Universities, the decision
was taken to constitute a Consortium of National Law
Universities. The Consortium got registered as Society in
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 on 26.03.2019. The
Consortium in its various meetings took decisions to streamline
conduct of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and for
coordination and cooperation among NLUs. The aims and
objectives further disclosed that the Consortium aims to make
the benefit of legal education of one or more NLUs to the rest of
the NLUs. Clause 3 deals with the governance of the society.
Clause 3.3 provides that the society shall exercise powers and
perform functions as enumerated therein. Clause 3.3.5 provides
that the society shall organise Common Admission Test for UG,
PG, Doctoral, Post-Doctoral courses for the National Law
Universities across the country. Clause 3.3.6 provides that society
shall provide a platform for admission to all National Law
Universities in India through CLAT for UG and PG Law courses
if such National Law Universities become the members of the
society. Bye-Laws of Consortium of National Law Universities
were also framed. The President and Vice-President under the
bye-laws are to be elected at the annual meeting of the governing
body. Bye-Laws provide that each member of the institution
ensure the admission on merit assessed through CLAT. As per
Bye-Laws clause 12.1, Vice-Chancellor of National Law School
of India University, Bangalore shall be ex-officio Secretary
Treasurer of the society. Bye-law 15 deals with "Membership"
whereas bye-law 15.3 contains heading "Requirement of
Membership". A perusal of Memorandum of Association and ByeLaws indicates that laudable objects for which National Law
Universities came together stood cemented by consortium being
registered as a society. As on date, there are 23 National Law
Universities which are part of the Consortium. The respondent
No.1 was the first National Law University which came into
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
309
existence by Act, 1986 of Karnataka Legislature. Other States
followed the suit creating National Law Universities. Different
National Law Universities established in different parts of the
Country have contributed immensely to the cause of legal
education.[Paras 63-67][348-G-H; 349-A-E; 350-B-D]
3.2 Even though obligations on members of Consortium
under the Bye-Laws are not statutory obligations but those
obligations are binding on the members. All members occupying
significant and important status have to conduct in fair and
reasonable manner to fulfill the aspirations of thousands of
students who look on these National Law Universities as
institutions of higher learning, personality and career builders.
Further the statutes under which National Law Universities have
been established cast public duties on these NLUs to function in
a fair, reasonable and transparent manner. These institutions of
higher learning are looked by society and students with respect
and great trust. All NLUs have to conduct themselves in a manner
which fulfills the cause of education and maintain the trust reposed
on them. Bye-Law 15.3.1 itself contemplates that the obligation
of membership is to ensure that the member institution reflects
core values and standards set by the Consortium according
appropriate respect for the autonomy of its member institution.
The autonomy of member institutions does not in any manner
come in the way of holding the Common Law Admission Test
(CLAT). Every institution maintains its autonomy as per the
statute governing, the obligation to maintain core value of the
Consortium in no manner affect the autonomy of the member
university. The core values of the Consortium aim to enhance
the prestige and content of legal education. Legal education has
a pivotal role in the development of the society and regulating
the inter se relations between the members of the society. To
conduct a Common Law Admission Test for all the Law
Universities is both in the national interest as well as in the
interest of the education. This Court time and again has
emphasised the importance and usefulness of Common Admission
Test for group of institutions imparting same or similar education.
[Paras 70, 73, 75 and 76][351-A-C; 352-B, C, F, G; 353-A-B]
RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and
others (2005) 6 SCC 537 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 603 -
followed.
Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society v. Registrar
of Societies and others (2000) 1 SCC 566 : [1999] 5
Suppl. SCR 161 - distinguished.
Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union
of India and others (2020) 8 SCC 705 - relied on.
3.3 It is true that respondent No.1 University follows a
unique system of Trimester, each semester has 70 teaching days
per three months term. The first Trimester as per resolution of
academic council was to begin on 01.07.2020 and was to end till
30th September,2020. This period of three months is not available
for respondent No.1 to start the first semester. The entire country
is struggling with Pandemic Covid-19 from March 2020. Loss in
the academic year is for all Universities in the Country. The
Academic Calendar of each University stood disrupted by Covid19. None of the Universities have declared the year as a 'zero
year'. The University Grants Commission being aware of the
consequences of Covid-19 Pandemic issued guidelines on the
examination in the Academic Calendar. As provided by UGC
guidelines which guidelines have been continued by subsequent
guidelines dated 06.07.2020, the UGC expected the Universities
to carry on some amendments in their academic calendar for the
session 2020-21. The Universities are not powerless to modify
their Academic Calendar looking to the pandemic. The Academic
year 2020-21 is not a normal academic year in which Universities
are expected to carry on their teaching and other activities in
normal mode and manner. The respondent No.1 University could
have very well found out ways and means to start the academic
Under-Graduate Law course even if it starts in mid of October
2020 after conduct of the CLAT on 28.09.2020. The Court is not
persuaded to accept the submission that "Doctrine of Necessity"
was applicable in the fact situation of the ongoing pandemic. UGC
in its guidelines dated 29.04.2020 had already asked all the
Universities to modify their academic calendar for the academic
year 2020-21. The UGC being the body to maintain standard of
education in the entire country and having contemplated for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
suitable amending the academic year, "Doctrine of Necessity"
does not arise. Being members of the Consortium respondent
No.1 ought not to have proceeded with holding a separate test
namely "NLAT" nor the academic year 2020-21 be required to
be declared as "zero-year" even if the course starts in the mid of
October, 2020.[Paras 81-83, 86][355-A-C, F-G; 356-C-D]
4. QUESTION NO.4
Whether online home proctored examination as proposed
by notification dated 03.09.2020, lacks transparency, was against
the very concept of fair examination and violative of the rights of
the students under Article 14 of the Constitution?
In the proceeding of the faculty meeting dated 06.08.2020
brought on record by the respondent No.1 along with his counter
affidavit, it has been mentioned that "NSLIU is the first
preference for more than 60 percent of CLAT applicants". About
69,000 students registered for CLAT-2020. 60 percent of 69,000
comes to 41,400. The registration into NLAT being only 24,603
out of which only 23,225 could appear makes it clear that a large
number of students who could have wanted to apply for admission
in respondent No.1 University could not even apply due to
shortage of time and technical requirement insisted by respondent
No.1 University. The figures fully support the submissions of the
petitioner that a large section of the students especially belonging
to marginalised sections of the society were denied the
opportunity to appear in the examination. Home based online
examination as proposed by the respondent No.1 University for
NLAT-2020-21 could not be held to be a test which was able to
maintain transparency and integrity of the examination. The short
notice and technological requirements insisted by the University
deprived a large number of students to participate in the test
violating their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
[Paras 94, 95][359-C-F]
5. QUESTION NO.5
Whether NLAT held on 12.09.2020 with re-test on
14.09.2020 was marred by malpractices and deserves to be set
aside.
RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
For the present case, it is not necessary for this court to
enter into various materials referred to by the petitioners and
the reports and to decide as to whether malpractices were actually
adopted in the examination or not. The Court need not express
any opinion in this proceeding under Article 32 with regard to
the aspect of malpractices in the test conducted on 12.09.2020
and 14.09.2020 which is essentially a matter of scrutiny of facts
and evidence. [Paras 102, 103][360-H; 361-A-C]
6. The writ petition is allowed in the following manner: -
(I) The notice for admission to the five year integrated
B.A.LL.B (Hons.) programme 2020-21 dated 03.09.2020
Annexure -P 14 as well as Press Release on NLSIU admission
2020-21 dated 04.09.2020 Annexure-P 15 are quashed.
(II) The respondent No.3 is directed to conduct the CLAT2020 examination on 28.09.2020 taking all precautions and care
for health of the students after following the Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(MoHFW) and Ministry of Human Resource Development
(MHRD).
(III) The respondent No.3 shall also ensure that the entire
process of declaration of the result be completed as early as
possible to enable the respondent No.1 and other National Law
Universities to start their course by the mid of October-2020.
(IV) The respondent No.1 shall also complete the admission
of B.A.LL.B (Hons.) programme 2020-21 on the basis of the
result of CLAT-2020.
(V) The respondent No.3 may take decision at an early date
restoring the status of respondent No.2 as the SecretaryTreasurer of the Consortium as well as restoring the Secretariat
of the Consortium as to NLSIU, keeping in mind that scheduled
exam of CLAT-2020 on 28.09.2020 is not hampered in any
manner.
In view of above order passed in the Writ Petition (Civil)
No.1030 of 2020, no orders are required in SLP(C) No.11059 of
2020.[Para 108 and 109][362-B-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
Varun Bhagat v. Union of India decision dated
25.07.2008 of Supreme Court inWrit Petition (C) No.
68 of 2006; T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of
Karnataka and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl.
SCR 587; PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603 : [2010] 3
SCR 609; V.T. Khanzode and Ors. v. Reserve Bank of
India and Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 7 : [1982] 3 SCR 411 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587
referred to
Para 45
[2010] 3 SCR 609
referred to
Para 48
[1982] 3 SCR 411
referred to
Para 49
[1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249
followed
Para 55
[1989] 2 SCR 454
relied on
Para 59
[1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 161
distinguished
Para 71
(2020) 8 SCC 705
relied on
Para 74
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 603
followed
Para 76
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1030 of 2020.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
With
SLP (C) No. 11059/2020
Nidhesh Gupta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Nikhil Nayyar, Arvind
P. Datar, Sajan Poovayya, P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Advs., P.B. Suresh, Vipin
Nair, Karthik Jayashankar, Sughosh Subramanyam, Agnish Aditya,
Ms. Japneet Kaur, Madhav Gupta, Ms. Pallavi Singh, Shrutanjaya
Bharadwaj, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Vishal Sinha, Ms. Gayatri Verma, Kush
Chaturvedi, Aditya Shekhar, Ms. Priyanshree Sharma PH, Divyanshu
Rai, Baibhaw Gahlaut, Shubham Gautam, Aditya Narayan, Rohit Sharma,
Rounak Nayak, Atul Agarwal, Lekha Chandrasekhar, Rahul Unnikrishnan,
Patibhanu Singh Kharola, Ms. Raksha Agrawal, Kumar Dushyant Singh,
K. Parameshwar, M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Kush Chaturvedi,
RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
Sandeep Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Rajat Gaur, Sujoy Gaur and Rakesh
K. Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This writ petition filed in Public Interest under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India questions admission notification dated 03.09.2020
issued by National Law School of India University, Bengaluru for
conducting separate admission entrance examination, the National Law
Aptitude Test(NLAT) scheduled for 12.09.2020. The petitioner seeks a
direction to National Law School of India University (hereinafter referred
to as "NLSIU") to admit students only through Common Law Admission
Test, 2020(CLAT) examination scheduled to take place on 28.09.2020.
The writ petition is filed by two petitioners. First petitioner is the father
of a student aspiring to gain admission into five years LL.B. programme
of National Law University and the petitioner No.2 is the former ViceChancellor of National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.
2. We may notice certain background facts for considering the
issues which have been raised in the writ petition. NLSIU, a premier
Law University of the country, was established pursuant to a joint initiative
of the Supreme Court of India, the Bar Council of India and the Karnataka
Bar Council. Bar Council of India, set up a society, namely, National
Law School of India Society as a registered society under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960. On request made to Government of
Karnataka for establishing the School as University by a Statute, the
State Government established National School of India University,
Bengaluru by National Law School of India Act, 1986 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act, 1986'). We shall notice the relevant provisions
of the Act, 1986 a little later. The NLSIU was meant to be a premier
School of Legal Education with five years undergraduate Law Course.
Following the footsteps of NLSIU, National Academy of Legal Studies
and Research (NALSAR) was established in Hyderabad in 1998 and
the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (NUJS) was
established in Kolkata in 1999 and National Law Institute University,
Bhopal (NLIU) was established by Act No.41 of 1997 by Madhya
Pradesh Legislature. Over the course of time States enacted similar
Statutes to create institutions for legal education which came to be known
as National Law Universities across the country. All the National Law
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
315
Universities have prescribed criteria for admission as well as syllabus
structure. In the initial years all National Law Universities were
conducting their own admission tests for admitting students in five years
Law course. A writ petition being Writ Petition(C)No.68 of 2006 Varun
Bhagat vs. Union of India came to be filed in this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution, impleading Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Ministry of Human
Resource Development through its Secretary, Bar Council of India,
NLSIU, Bengalore and five other National Law Universities. The writ
petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondent to lay down the
mechanism of centralised admission process to the various National Law
Universities to facilitate the interests of the students. This Court issued
notice in the writ petition. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India
made a statement before this Court that Ministry of Human Resource
Development in consultation with the various Law Universities and other
concerned stakeholders, shall take steps to examine and evolve a scheme/
policy in accordance with which a combined entrance examination could
be conducted for premier National Law Universities. The Government
of India convened various meetings with Directors/Vice-Chancellors and
other educational functionaries. In the Writ Petition No.68 of 2006
counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of Human Resource Development where detailed steps taken
by the Ministry of Human Resource Development were enumerated
including details of various meetings which were held with ViceChancellors of Law Universities in the year 2006 between September,
2006 to December, 2006. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit
following was stated:
"10....It is expected that all the required informational notes shall
be received during the course of February, 2007 and further steps
shall be timely taken in order to ensure that the process of holding
a Combined Admission Test for the academic session 2008-2009
is put in place as expeditiously as possible."
3. The National Law Universities entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding dated 27.11.2007 where the National Law Universities
decided to hold a common admission test, namely, Common Law
Admission Test (CLAT). Every University shall conduct the examination
starting with the oldest University. When the Writ Petition No.68 of
2006 came for hearing on 25.07.2008, this Court noticed that prayers
RAKESH KUMAR AGARWALLA v. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
sought in the writ petition have already been accomplished, this Court
passed following order:
"The prayers sought for in the writ petition have already been
accomplished, so the writ petition is disposed of."
4. The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) started to be held
with effect from the year 2008 for admission in five years law course of
National Law Universities, which was a great relief to the students'
community aspiring for joining a professional course in Law. The CLAT
was conducted at different centres throughout the country. The number
of National Law Universities kept on growing one by one and currently
there are 23 National Law Universities in the country.
5. Writ petition being Writ Petition (C)No.600 of 2015 came to be
filed by one Shamnad Basheer praying that an independent professional
body conducting CLAT on annual basis be constituted. This Court passed
various orders in the aforesaid writ petition. On 28.11.2018 this Court
passed the following order in the aforesaid writ petition:
"Application for intervention is dismissed as withdrawn.
Shri Atmaram N.S.