All NLU students/alumni should unite and file intervenor applications before the SC and argue for parity of all NLUs with IIT/IIM/BIT/NID/SPA/NIFT.

Typing this comment in non controversial language to avoid contempt: There are some Cal HC judges who have been cautious in ruling against the Bengal govt and adopted a non activist position.

Kian, you are missing the real story. These are the real questions to ask:

1. Why did the BCI only challenge NLSIU reservation and not NLUD/NUJS/NLUO reservation?

2. Why did ASG Banerjee argue that NLSIU is a national college but others are like KSLU?

3.Are these the official positions of GOI?

4. What has NUJS said in its reply to the court? What is the stand of the VC and why are the students silent?

5. What role will the Bengal elections play? How actively are the TMC people interfering?

[quote]and several had in fact also been set up by the so-called father of NLSIU, Prof Madhava Menon).[/quote].

Kian, this is wrong. Menon set up only NUJS while NL Mitra, his successor, set up NLUJ. No other NLU was set up by ex NLSIU VCs.

I have said this before: Law School is unique. Other so-called NLUs are nothing but SLUs (State Law Colleges). The ideal solution is that NLSIU quits CLAT and has a separate NLAT. Furthermore, there will soon be an International Law University (ILU) in Goa with Law School's mentorship/affiliation. Thus, there will be 3 categories of colleges: ILU (in Goa), NLU (i.e. NLSIU) and SLU (all the CLAT universities:: NALSAR, NUJS, NLUD etc, with perhaps ULC Bengaluru being a better candidate from Karnataka than KSLU).

As of 2020, there are 159 institutes, declared as Institutes of National Importance under a distinct Act of Parliament. These INIs include 23 IITs; 15 AIIMSs; 20 IIMs; 31 NITs; 25 IIITs; 7 IISERs, 7 NIPERs; 5 NIDs; 3 SPAs; 5 central universities; 4 medical research institutes and 14 other specialized institutes.

All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) are declared as Institutes of National Importance through the 'All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956' and its subsequent amendments.

Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) are declared as Institutes of National Importance through the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 and its subsequent amendments.

The National Institutes of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) are declared as Institutes of National Importance through the 'National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research Act, 1998' and its subsequent amendments

National Institutes of Technology (NIT) are declared as Institutes of National Importance through the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 and its subsequent amendments.

Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISER) are declared as Institutes of National Importance through the amendments in the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007

Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIIT) are declared as Institutes of National Importance through the 'Indian Institute of Information Technology Act, 2014' and the 'Indian Institutes of Information Technology (Public-Private Partnership) Act, 2017' and their subsequent amendments.

Schools of Planning and Architecture (SPA) are declared as Institutes of National Importance through the 'School of Planning and Architecture Act, 2014' and its subsequent amendments.

National Institutes of Design (NID) are declared as Institution of National Importance through the 'National Institute of Design Act 2014' and its subsequent amendments.

Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) are declared as Institutes of National Importance through the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017 and its subsequent amendments.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_National_Importance

BREAKING NEWS: Backchannel talks are taking place to get the CAN Foundation to file a submission to the SC against domicile quota. This is a foundation established by NLIU alumni to give scholarships to needy students. The patrons of CAN include top Senior Advocates who have worked under both BJP and Congress governments, while various SC judges are on record praising CAN's work.

https://canfoundation.in/

If IDIA and CAN can both file separate petitions, that would be ideal.

Some exciting political developments to watch out for:

- Cabinet reshuffle by Modi: Will RS Prasad remain law minister or be replaced by Sadananda Gowda again? If Prasad is out, does that mean Manan Mishra is also out and the end of the Bihar lobby? Also, will Meenakshi Lekhi be new MoS Law minister? Will she push for her NLU Nationalisation Bill? And any change in HRD Ministry, which is the other relevant one? Maybe Jyotiraditya Scindia?

- Cabinet reshuffle in Karnataka: Any changes to law or education portfolios? Any impact on NLSIU?

- KKV is 90 and will have to retire soon. If Tushar Mehta becomes the new AG, will Modi make Vikramjit Banerjee the new SG, since he has an established BJP connection for many years? Will he then lobby for special status for NLSIU?

- West Bengal elections: Will Mamata increase NUJS reservation to 50% if HC rules in favour? Also, the SC will rule on whether Sourav Ganguly and Jay Shah can continue in the BCCI. If the SC sacks Sourav, will he join BJP as Bengal CM candidate? What does that mean for NUJS? Also, who will be the next law minister of Bengal? Som Mandal?

Reservation is valid here. How can nlsiu say no to it.

It is of no relevance to this debate that NLSIU has the word "school" and "university" in it. It is complete trolling to bring this up . In any case, the reason for for using "National Law School" is that NLSIU was modelled on Harvard Law School Adding "University" was a UGC requirement, as someone here has pointed out. Adding "India" was to distinguish it from other countries (as someone here has also pointed out) and because it was set up by Bar Council of India to be an all-India institution . Also, as has again been pointed out, this distinguishes it from a state government institution with the words "Gujarat", "Maharashtra" or "West Bengal" in it.

Why is it on every legal education comment thread there are just these resentful angry hate posts about Sudhir/ NLS?

How Vella are people? Or are they deluded enough to think that bitching someone else out will make them and their institutions better ?

I’m sure by now the law school folks have learnt to shake it off.

But the haters gotta take stock here. Why keep hating when you can spend that time actually working to improve your own uni?

The real story is how NLSIU alumni lobbied and got the BCI to file an unprecedented petition challenging reservation and an ASG to argue it. Hushed and secretive meetings took place.

Forget NLSIU, why is NUJS not challenging the quota, apart from a few alumni? Why are students and the alumni association sleeping?

Kudos to Rohit Das for fighting singlehandedly and without SJA support, but let's be frank: he must appoint a senior advocate to argue this and not do it himself. In Indian courts lack of grey hair can make a lawyer lose a case no matter how sound.

Have the armchair commentators here actually read the Karnataka High Court ruling, or heard of a subject called Interpretation of Statutes? It is 100% correct to say that NLSIU is different from others and cannot have reservation.

[quote]Ram’s achievements are enviable; some glorified and celebrated, others understated. Perhaps the least recognised is his contribution in setting up the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore, India’s first five-year legal program for students after intermediate. NLSIU was a culmination of Ram’s friendship with RK Hegde, Karnataka’s Chief Minister. Ram had represented Hegde’s son Bharat when he was accused of corruption in a medical seat scam. Talking of his endeavour, Ram says, ‘I started National Law School because of Upendra Baxi. Upendra Baxi was supposed to be the first Director Designate of the University. And Upendra is a genius, everybody must acknowledge. We may have differences in viewpoint on some issues but otherwise, he is a genius.’ Ironically when the National Law School was inaugurated, Ram and his name were both missing. The school’s foundation stone had the names of VR Reddy, the Chairman of the Bar Council and Prof Madhav Menon. Ram’s name had been left out.[/quote]

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2017/09/11/ram-jethmalani-the-dare-devil-announces-retirement-from-the-practice-of-law/

[quote]Certainly the National Law School began in Karnataka because of Ram's personal and political friendship with R.K. Hegde, which dated back to when they both worked together in the Janata Party. As Chief Minister, Hegde wanted the school as a feather in the state's cap as much as he wanted to help Ram. He also had a dream that Bangalore would become the artistic and intellectual capital of India. At the same time that he induced the National Law School to open in Bangalore, he also enticed the Indian Institute of Technology to start there. Karnataka was not the only state interested in the school either. The states of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal were also early contenders, but Hegde had more to offer. Hegde directed Bangalore University to allocate 14 acres of land just outside of Bangalore for the law school, and he also obtained a temporary accommodation from Central College—the oldest college of Bangalore—so the law school could start functioning immediately. Hegde ensured that the state of Karnataka provided a grant of Rs 50 lakhs—about $200,000 US dollars—to be paid over five years, and it immediately gave the school a start-up sum of Rs 10 lakhs, about $40,000. The first students started in July 1988. The school moved into its permanent campus in 1990, and in 1991 it became a fully residential university. According to Ram's former junior, Jaisinghani, some money also may have come from some of Ram's rich clients as a donation in lieu of legal fees, but university sources do not remember such a gift. Hegde's most important contribution to forming the university was an act of the Karnataka State Legislature.Initially, Ram and Prof. Baxi thought their new creation would have to be a Deemed University. This means it is established by the Government of India without being affiliated with any pre-existing institution, an autonomous college that works like a university for the purposes of designing a curriculum, running courses, and awarding a degree. The problem was that when Prof. N.L. Mitra, Prof. Baxi and Ram met with Mr V.R. Reddy, the chairman of the Bar Council in 1986, they realized that this school's affiliation with Central College precluded it from being a Deemed University. Certainly Ram and the others did not want the law school to apply for Deemed status only to find out they could not get it. That meant they would need an act of the legislature to found an actual university. So, as it turned out, since the school could not become a college, it had to become a university. Karnataka had to pass a statute. Prof. Baxi drafted the proposed bill overnight with Ram, and at the instance of Hegde, it was passed as an ordinance the next day by the Karnataka government, even though the legislature was not in session. The legislature formally passed the National Law School of India University Act of 1986 in its next session, within six months of passing the ordinance. Thus the National Law School started out as a full university founded by a central or state government.
....

The first director-designate of the new law school was Prof Upendra Baxi, but he declined, worried about who would pay the start-up and running expenses. The next professor approached was Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon, the secretary of the Bar Council Foundation at the time and a friend of Ram's. Ram and Reddy approached Menon, and he accepted the appointment as director of the pilot project. Though it is ironic, Ram was never present at the inauguration ceremony for the National Law School. Some say it was just because he no longer was an official of the Bar Council. The school's foundation stone was inscribed with the names of Mr Reddy, the chairman of the Bar Council at the time, and Prof. Menon. Ram was not mentioned. Menon told the Ford Foundation that he was the one who came back from a trip to America in 1984 with the idea of a five year model, and that he was the one who had lobbied various constituencies for support until the Bar Council decided to back his plan in 1985. He also told the Ford Foundation that when the position as director was first offered to Prof. Baxi, India's top legal scholar, Baxi had a number of concerns. He had been working on behalf of the Bhopal victims, and he was disgusted with the way the government was handling the matter. He found it troubling to be working directly under the auspices of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, who by law was the National Law School Chancellor. He also was worried about how the school could retain its independence, and he was reluctant to solicit funding from foreign donors. This is why he turned down the position. Menon told the Ford Foundation that he spent late 1986 and early 1987 recruiting top academics to his faculty. That was a matter with which Ram took issue. He had been very unhappy as he watched the faculty become regional in its representation, instead of being constituted through a nationwide or even international search for the best talent. At first there was a national advertisement for faculty. The first batch was selected by a committee composed of Dr Menon, Mr V.R. Reddy, Dr G.S. Sharma, a national academic figure, and two other experts. The committee recommended Prof. Mitra from West Bengal; Dr K.K. Puri from Queensland, Australia, and Dr M.P. Singh from Delhi for the posts of professors. They also recommended Mr Balanchandran from Kerala as associate professor; Dr Jaigovind, originally from Karnataka but recently returned from Nigeria and Mr V.S. Mallar from Goa as senior assistant professors. The assistant professors were Mr Vijay Kumar from Tamil Nadu, Mr N.S. Gopalakrishnan from Kerala (a revenue officer and economist educated in Harvard university), and Mr Joga Rao from Andhra Pradesh. Further additions were added in stages, but by now there was no advertisement or selection committee similar to the original one. At this stage, new faculty was more often added on the basis of acquaintanceships. Ram was now vocal about his concerns. New professors were almost entirely from Kerala or Karnataka. Ram urged the executive committee to only make appointments on a national level through advertisements. [/quote]

Source: Susan Adelman, Rebel: A Biography of Ram Jethmalani

Request to Kian: Out of the 4 main architects of NLSIU (Ram Jethmalani, Prof Menon, Prof Baxi and Chief Minister Hedge), only Baxi is alive and teaching at Jindal. Will it be possible to get an interview with him and ask him for his thoughts on the domicile quota issue? He is also a giant in the field of Constitutional law, so maybe the SC will also take notice if LI does an interview? And perhaps interview MP Singh while you are at it, given his stature?

Nothing to worry for Law School. As those in the know are well aware, the entire KarHC litigation had been directed by an eminent alumnus at the Supreme Court. In fact, the working assumption was that we might lose at the HC, but be prepared for a real fight at the SC. The HC win, as resounding as it was, has only improved everyone confidence. Its going to be herculean for GoK to unseat such a strongly worded, and well-reasoned judgment on appeal, leave aside the clout Law School has in the SC.

How can people compare NLSIU with other CLAT universities? The CJI is the Chancellor of NLSIU whereas it is the state CJ in the case of most other NLUs. In the case of RMLNLU, it is Yogi Adityanath. In the case of DSNLU, their first Chancellor was then HNLU VC Lakshminath! Even if we look at the other colleges where the CJI is Chancellor (NUJS, GNLU, MNLU Mumbai) they are different in so many ways, e.g.:

- Name of the state in the name of the NLU.
- Governing bodies are filled with local people.
- Inferior faculty
- Not ranked in QS or top 3 of NIRF
- Little or no central government-funded research chairs and grants.
- Existence of so-called NRI quota (which is just a paid quota for Indian citizens who cannot crack CLAT)

Sudhir will in the Supreme Court. Then INI status. Then Claxit and replaced by KSLU in CLAT.

NLSIU Alumni partnered with AirAsia for mission Aahan Vaahan to transport stranded migrants back home. Watch Bharat Ke Mahaveer, on 5 Dec at 7 PM on Discovery.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EoPCcwSVEAkO4rv.jpg[/img]

For people who still doubt that Law School is special, let me explain it this way: the BCI is to law what the BCCI is to cricket. The BCCI has set up the National Cricket Academy in Bengaluru, where all young cricketers aspiring for Team India come for training without domicile discrimination. Now, suppose the Delhi Cricket Association or Gujarat Cricket Association sets up their own academy to train Ranji Trophy cricketers, can you compare them with NCA? If these state academies have domicile reservations for Ranji Trophy cricketers from their own state, we cannot object. But if the NCA has reservation for Karnataka cricketers only, then we can certainly object. The key difference is a BCCI academy versus state cricket association academy. Same applies to Law School.

https://livelaw.in/news-updates/pratap-bhanu-mehta-project-39a-annual-speech-dissent-supreme-court-protest-166849

And I thought that VCs of NLUs did it first. Thankfully for some things went down badly.

Wasn't NKC down with pneumonia earlier in Nov? Is it COVID now? I thought it was a far-reaching Inquiry initiated by the state government.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/language-push-will-be-end-of-iits-director/cid/1799579

https://www.telegraphindia.com/west-bengal/calcutta/iim-calcutta-teachers-rue-decline/cid/1799649

Messiah virus strikes IIM-C.

Also isn't this exactly how things happen in NLUs as well? Minutes and agenda notes being controlled and manipulated by the powers that be; barring acolytes no one else even knows what gets into the "agenda" etc.

If Rohit Das heads the alumni association he will do a lot of stuff. He led from the front even when he was a student. He drafted student petitions to Menon, Chimni and MP Singh, and they all worked (of course, Menon, Chimni and MP Singh were also all gentlemen from a bygone era).

BIG BREAKING NEWS: The case is now listed on the SC website. Two alumni, i.e. Satyajit Sarna (hotshot SC lawyer and son of former foreign secretary Navtej Sarna)and Nikhil Singhvi (another hotshot lawyer), are also listed as parties challenging the quota. NLSIU students and alumni + Sudhir are going all to fight this case and it's also hard to imagine the SC say that IIT/IIM/NID cannot have state reservation but NLSIU can.

My prediction on what will happen now:

1. Next week, Cal HC judges uphold quota at NUJS
2. SC however upholds Karnataka HC judgement and says no reservation at NLSIU. SC then passes remarks saying that NLSIU is a national university but NUJS is a state university.

The SC decision depends on the judges hearing the case. There are some judges from English-speaking, big city backgrounds who have been educated in elite schools and colleges. They have a cosmopolitan mindset and have family members mixed from different communities in India, so they do not see themselves as exclusively Kannada, exclusively Gujarati etc. They will likely rule in favour of NLSIU. On the other hand, those from traditional vernacular backgrounds are more likely to be provincial in their thinking and monocultural in their upbringing. They will perhaps rule in favour of the Karnataka government.

Yes, it's true that the older IIMs also face problems as you have pointed out, but IIMs are secure because of INI status and central govt funding + strong alumni links. In fact, their governing bodies are required to have alumni representation. NLUs do not have this advantage as they are regulated by state governments, although a proactive VC can improve things.

The NUJS petition seems to have been withdrawn. The Cal HC has not listed the matter today. Furthermore, the single judge had declined relief because he said that the petitioner student has not yet got a rank in CLAT to show that he is disadvantaged. CLAT result are now out and the petitioner's rank is way too low for any NLU. Thus, there is no locus standi. Had alumni or the SJA joined as co-petitioners and treated it like a PIL, like in the case of NLSIU, then the petition may have proceeded. But now it cannot proceed. However, a fresh petition can be filed before the SC seeking to join the NLSIU case. This can be filed by the SJA/alumni, or NUJS itself, if the VC has the spine. This is no doubt a better option that fighting in Bengal under Mamata's regime.

Bottomline: The ball is now firmly in the court of the SJA President and office bearers on whether to approach the SC. They can choose to sleep over it or take action.

LMAO. Where did these KC bhakts come from? KC's twitter page reads like a TMC mouthpiece, so maybe the same people are returning the favour? Or is it KC himself?

Insider update on Law School domicile quota case: Two A-list counsels who are alumni will be arguing the case. The strategy for Law School will be to push for an observation that Law School is a de facto Institution of National Importance that is different from other NLUs and in a class of its own. This judicial seal of approval will then be used to push for formal INI status through an Act of Parliament. After that the sky is the limit.