NLSIU Bengaluru has made a submission to the Supreme Court unexpectedly stating that it would be implementing state-level domicile reservations from the 2021-22 academic year.
According to a note submitted to the apex court by NLSIU’s advocate-on-record Kumar Dushyant Singh:
4. Hence, inter alia reservation for Karnataka students will be implemented at the Respondent No.4 University from academic year 2021-22. The Respondent No.4 Universitybrings this matter to the attention of this Hon’ble Court for further consideration.
The decision is the result of a “NLSIU Inclusion and Expansion Plan 2021-2024”, which is was “developed… to deepen and increase diversity of its student body and facilitate greater access to various marginalized and/or underprivileged sections of society”, according to the note.
The plan “provides for additional reservation categories for admission to the Respondent No.4 University, including for Karnataka students”.
We have not been able to confirm further details at the moment and exactly what shape or form these reservations will take.
The move is particularly surprising since it had been NLSIU alumni that had challenged the Karnataka state reservation and won in the Karnataka high court, which the state government promptly appealed to the Supreme Court.
It is in this SLP that NLSIU has now stated that it would now be implementing reservations.
The surprisingly short notice that it would implement the state quota after all, also seems to go against the Karnataka high court judgment in the same case made on 29 September 2020.
In its Master Balachandar Krishnan vs The State Of Karnataka judgment, the court noted that once the admissions process had started, reservations could not be changed anymore since this would act to the detriment of students:
191. There is only one other aspect of the matter which requires consideration and that is the timing of the provision of the impugned reservation. On 01.01.2020, the announcement was made by the respondent/Consortium for conducting CLAT for the purpose of filling up of the seats of the National Law Schools which are members of the Consortium including the respondent/Law School.
Accordingly, the aspiring students have submitted their applications and have given their preferences. In the midst of the said process, in the last week of April 2020, the impugned reservation was provided by way of the Amendment Act. It is noted that when CLAT was announced on 01.01.2020, no provision was made for any reservation on the basis of domicile or institutional preference in Karnataka State, as has been pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
After the passing of the impugned Amendment Act, the Consortium had to again announce for change of preference of colleges to be made by the students. The examination was to be conducted later as it had been postponed on account of the Corona virus-COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent lockdown ordered by the Central Government and State Governments with effect from the midnight of 25th March 2020.
Thus, when the process of admission had already commenced, the provision of reservation in the respondent/Law School could not have been altered. Even though, it is a provision for the benefit of Karnataka students, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the same is detrimental to the students who do not fulfill the eligibility criteria provided by the impugned Amendment.
As a result, these students, who are more meritorious than the students of Karnataka as defined by the impugned Amendment would be displaced.
Comments
[img]https://media0.giphy.com/media/l3q2GEsO9x0HZVLWg/200.gif[/img]
The SC is hearing an appeal regarding this judgement and if it rules in favour of NLSIU (as it should) then NLSIU is official recognised as a national institution of eminence different from other NLUs.
[quote] We find that adding marks to students of Karnataka to prop up their merit in order to ensure that they fit into the merit list is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution....
The BCI also has a significant say in the functioning and management of the School through its membership in the various Authorities of the School. ...The significance of the Chief Justice of India being nominated as the Chancellor of the School by the Society cannot be undermined. ...
This makes the respondent/Law School a truly national institution. What distinguishes the Law School in question from other Law Schools is its diversity, its national or All India character with an international outlook. According to Prof.Menon, it must become the 'Harvard of the East'. [/quote]
Re point 1, nowhere has NLSIU conceded that Karnataka students will be forced into the merit list. Suppose there are 100 students in all with 80 in the merit list and 20 SC/ST/OBC seats. Let us say 8 in the merit list and 5 in the SC/ST/OBC list are are already from Karnataka. That comes to 13 seats. Out of the remaining 15 SC/ST/OBC seats, suppose 12 are reserved for Karnataka. Thus, 25 seats out of 100 become Karnataka seats without touching the national merit list. Nothing changes.
Re point 2, the CJI remains Chancellor and the BCI continues to have control over NLSIU. This makes NLSIU fundamentally different from other law schools. It's possible that 1 or 2 other law schools may have the CJI as Chancellor, but none have BCI involvement.
Re point 3, diversity and national character remain in the merit list, while the international outlook will continue (if not increase) though student exchanges, faculty with international qualifications and visiting professors form abroad.
What fundamentally changes? Nothing.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170946768/
Here's a little reality check: it doesn't matter whether NLS reserves 1% of seats for KA students or 50%. The minute there is any kind of domicile reservation in favour of local candidates in any category under any program, the all-India character of the law school is gone. This does feel almost karmic after that NLS alum's underhanded attempt to push other NLUs down in his arguments before the KA HC last year.
Also, the KA HC j'ment also said that the governing council of the law school was free to take decisions on the same, so I don't see what is illegal about it, Kian. Of course, notifying it now might be disallowed, in this case.
Not sure what exactly this kind of reservation scheme entails since it isn't out in the public domain yet. It may be very inclusive if done right. It would be great if you could get the details, Kian. My suspicion is that the NLS VC has realised that being at war with the KA govt. is not conducive to the development of the law school. NLS doesn't receive any substantial funds from other govts. and has been continuously jacking up its fees since the new VC took over. Also, there is no way the Centre plans to declare it an IoE or nationalise it in the near term especially when it hasn't even featured in the world rankings this year. This whole nonsense of a self-financed autonomous institution is just hot air. No public university in the world is sustainable on such a basis. They need governmental support in some form or the other.
@Kian: As of now, it would be the right thing to do if you could mark all the posts which refer to NLS as a "special" and "unique" institution as "facts contested"/"trollish" so as to prevent these trolls from misleading aspirants and students.
Regarding the "underhanded attempt to push other NLUs down", why didn't the BCI challenge reservation elsewhere? For the reasons above. Please take it up with the BCI.
As for reliance on the Karnataka govt for funds, let us wait and see if NLSIU is declared as an INI. There is a compelling case for doing so and a few alumni have proposed it.
Anyway, it was unethical of LI to leak this letter, as it was confidential.
The right thing to do now would be for this case before the SC to be withdrawn and for NLS to privately negotiate with the KA govt. on the modalities of the reservation. I'm sure the Sup. Ct. has other more important cases in its backlog to attend to now that NLS has conceded the point on its status by seeking to provide quotas for KA students.
You also do not know the modalities of what is being discussed by the governing body, so kindly refrain from speculating.
1. No reservation at all. Instead, diplomas in Kannada offered to villagers in Karnataka. Or a separate Kannada-language LLM/MBL course. Or a new NLSIU satellite campus in Shiggaon (consistency of the state law minister Basavaraj Bommai). This campus will offer diploma courses in Kannada to backward students in Karnataka, maybe even a full-fledged Kannada BALLB.
2. Reservation for all courses OTHER THAN BALLB.
3. Reservation for Karnataka ONLY within the SC/ST quota within BALLB, i.e. merit list is NOT tampered with.
4. 100% reservation for Kannadigas for NOT-TEACHING JOBS, e.g. clerical staff, gardeners, sweepers etc.
5. Fee waiver for Kannadiga students who make it. No reservation, just fee waiver.
Regarding domiciliary reservation in its present form though, I agree that it does not achieve any particular good in terms of access or inclusion, other than providing some political points to the funding states. If Centre chooses to nationalise the NLUs, then this problem can be easily sorted.
"a national-level institution ... the National Law Schools in other States cannot be compared with or put on par with the respondent/Law School. In fact, the respondent/Law School could be compared with institutions such as AIIMS, Delhi or IITs and IIMs, where the reservation in the admission process are provided not by the respective State Governments"
(para 163 of Master Balachandar Krishnan v The State Of Karnataka)
Absolutely NOTHING has changed. The letter does not say so either. It only says that an "inclusion" and "expansion" policy [i]"including for Karnataka students" [/i] is being introduced. How does this tantamount to domicile reservation or denying that NLSIU is of the same status as IIT and AIIMS?
NLSIU is an ordinary Karnataka University. It must follow all reservation norms for Kannadigas.
Jai Karnataka.
Kian - you may wish to analyse it in some detail. Main points - huge expansion of the BALLB program to 1500 students (300 in each year); re-introduction of the 3-year LLB, 30% quota for women, expansion of campus and residential facilities, etc. Very grand plans but very little clarity.