Rajasathan HC hears CLAT transparency PIL but rejects plea for NLU Delhi to join CLAT

The Rajasthan high court on Friday issued notice to all national law universities part of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) core committee, the Bar Council of India and CLAT 2014 convenor GNLU Gandhinagar, in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed for transparency in the exam’s answering process.

Jodhpur CLAT coaching centre Law Prep Tutorial, a GNLU Gandhinagar graduate, two NLU Jodhpur students and 15 CLAT aspirants had filed a PIL in the HC seeking CLAT answer keys to be made available online after the exam, and for examinees to be allowed to carry the question papers and a carbon copy of the OMR answer sheets outside the examination hall.

The petitioners had also asked for direction to NLU Delhi to join the CLAT process instead of conducting its separate entrance test, the All India Law Entrance Test (AILET), and for CLAT 2014 to be “conducted by a Core Committee, which can be constituted jointly by all the respondent NLUs throughout the Country”.

The HC did not allow the PIL on the points of NLU Delhi joining CLAT and conduct by core committee, but said that “the suggestions about transparency” required consideration.

The bench asked the respondents to reply to the notices within two weeks.

In May a candidate for the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for admission to India’s top engineering colleges the IITs and the NITs had challenged the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in the Delhi HC to disclose the exam’s answer key after the exam, as reported by Legally India.

Comments

A 19 Feb 2014, 02:48
+2 -1
Ridiculous. NLSIU was forced to join CLAT. Why not NLUD? Must be challenged in SC.
Legal Blondie 19 Feb 2014, 06:25
+1 -1
[quote name="A"]Ridiculous. NLSIU was forced to join CLAT. Why not NLUD? Must be challenged in SC.[/quote]

Err..because there is fixed time period for which a NLU has to be functioning BEFORE it is acccepted into the CLAT function!
Legally Blonde 19 Feb 2014, 12:30
+2 -0
Incorrect. No such time limit has been prescribed.
Outsider 19 Feb 2014, 19:09
+2 -1
[quote name="Legally Blonde"]Incorrect. No such time limit has been prescribed.[/quote]
Had there been such a time limit, NLUJA (Assam) wouldn't have managed to join anyway.
@ Kian 19 Feb 2014, 05:33
+1 -1
Kian, is there any update on the similar Joint Entrance Examination case that LI had previously covered?
Ghonshu Patel 19 Feb 2014, 15:57
+1 -0
Good PIL. I likes.
Guest 25 Mar 2014, 11:49
+0 -0
Actually it's better if the aspirants have three separate law entrance exams (CLAT, NLU-D, Symbi). It's better than placing all eggs in one basket. What if someone screws one exam? They wouldn't have another chance! Just imagine, if you're an aspirant, you know one exam will decide which college you would get in, won't you be realllly tensed? Three exams isn't a problem for anyone, weighing considerations such as time and money. It is a good decision by the Raj HC.

Further, when PILs are being filed in the future(with regard to law entrances), I hope the petitioner keeps in mind the larger interests of the students than to base the PIL on theoretical and utopian considerations.