The Supreme Court has ruled that NLSIU Bangalore’s National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) exam as invalid, accepting nearly all arguments of the petitioners and rejecting nearly all of NLS’.
The exam had been announced at short notice in a break from the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and was marred by technical issues.
Update 11:55: NLSIU has updated its admissions microsite with a link to the final judgment (see screenshot above).
The Supreme Court bench of justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah has now ordered NLSIU to re-join the CLAT 2020 process.
SC quashes NLSIU’s notification on #NLAT2020. SC says that the NLSIU shall conduct its admission process in accordance with the CLAT 2020.
The CLAT completion of results be completed as early as possible so that the Courses by all NLU’s can begin by mid— October 2020. — LiveLaw
After two days of intense arguments, their lordships have now put the NLAT genie back in the bottle.
What is unclear is how, if at all, NLS will unravel the application fees of the 27,000-odd applicants and how it will re-integrate back into the CLAT system.
Also, NLS will now need to restructure its trimester system and syllabus in order to adjust for the later start date.
We have reached out to NLS, the CLAT convenors and the petitioners’ lawyers for comment.
Update 19:59: NLS has announced it would refund the Rs 150 application fees per candidate, after subtracting Rs 75 “processing charges”.
Update 22:25: Prof Faizan Mustafa hs also made a statement on behalf of the consortium, urging bygones to be treated as bygones.
‘Unbelievable truly’
Advocate Shubham Gautam (an NLIU Bhopal 2015 graduate), who had pro bono filed a case in the Jharkhand high court with advocate Baibhaw Gahlaut, and intervened in the Supreme Court case with Kush Chaturvedi (AOR), Aditya Shekhar and Priyashree Sharma, commented:
Filing the case the very next day of notification, getting listed on urgent basis and then losing in Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court. Still appealing before SC And then winning! It’s been one hell of a ride. Happy is the word. This is unbelievable truly. When all decisions have gone against students, the decision of the Hon’ble S.C. comes as a sunshine.
I sincerely thank all the students who agreed to be the petitioners, learned senior advocates who argued on behalf of the petitioners, my colleagues Baibhaw Gahlaut, Aditya Shekhar and AOR Mr. Kush Chaturvedi. Now the students can reward us by performing well in the CLAT 2020 exam. We wish them all the best.
The Supreme Court also ordered that NLSIU should (‘may’) become treasurer / secretary of the CLAT consortium again.
(V) The respondent No.3 may take decision at an early date restoring the status of respondent No.2 as the Secretary-Treasurer 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.
The judgment
The Supreme Court rejected nearly all of NLSIU’s arguments, starting with its contention that the petitioners’ lacked standing to bring their writ.
However (see below for more detail), the court decided (perhaps wisely, considering all the technological quagmire and buzzwords) that it did not need to enter whether NLS would have been able to catch cheating or not (though the justices expressed “no doubt” that the “premier university… “must have taken all necessary precautions to avoid any malpractices and cheating”.
Access under article 14 was key
The judgment concluded that the main issues were “transparency and integrity” of the exam and its short notice:
95. We thus conclude that 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.
Not persuaded by zero year argument
The judges added that they were not convinced by NLSIU’s rationale that it had been forced to start the NLAT to avoid a so-called ‘zero year’ write-off of the 2020-21 academic session for new joiners:
86. We are not persuaded to accept the submission that “Doctrine of Necessity” was applicable in the fact situation of the ongoing pandemic. As noted above, UGC in its guidelines dated 29.04.2020 has 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 suitable amending the academic year, “Doctrine of Necessity” does not arise.
We thus conclude that 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.
NLS failed in not consulting its academic council
As had first been raised publicly by Nalsar Hyderabad VC Prof Faizan Mustafa, and as we had confirmed that the NLSIU academic council (AC) indeed had not met, the Supreme Court agreed that NLS notification for the NLAT was invalid without prior AC recommendation:
62. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that 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.
We, thus, in view of the forgoing discussions, hold that 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.
Technology: Trust in Number 1 NLU (and anon forensic consultancy)
On the other hand, the Supreme Court was not really interested in going in more deeply into instances of cheating or faulty technology, saying it placed faith in NLS’ statements in court that its systems were robust enough:
100. It is submitted that extensive technological and other measures are implemented to ensure that any candidate attempting any form of malpractices is caught and disqualified from the process either during the exam itself or after the post examination during audit and scrutiny.
101. Shri Datar submits that NLAT 2020 has made use of a combination of Artificial Intelligence and human Proctoring. It is further submitted that in order to give full effect to human and Artificial Intelligence proctoring measures available post examination, respondent No.1 appointed a leading audit firm to carry out an independent forensic audit and assessment of data relating to the examination and submit the report. He submits that care and precautions were taken by University for conduct of free and fair test and on the basis of some media reports and few materials brought on record, it cannot be concluded that the examination is marred by malpractices especially in proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution.
…learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that 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. Respondent No.1 being premier University, we have no doubt that it must have taken all necessary precautions to avoid any malpractices and cheating in the examination.
Comments
@ Jabra Fan, where you at
Did he float a public tender before taking services of testpanindia.com? No. is it illegal. yes!
NLS does not have funds to pay the salaries of the employees but how come the fancy lawyers are being paid across India for different matters?
No accountability is it?
God bless the Supreme Court.
It's time for the VC to resign.
The law truly does protect only those who protect it, at least for this day in the apex court.
Peace.
SC has reignited the spark that many law aspirants in the country have.
When he admits kids in second trimester directly, one can only imagine what would befall the poor kids. Though with Lizzie exit, Somu pushed to second trimester, a few may still survive. Getting there is one thing, surviving another.
No person should take "risks" at such short-notice that cause mental distress to thousands of applicants, extricate additional fee from them and then institute a system that keeps adding/changing rules on a whim, all the while hurting those that may not be as well placed as some of us are. There must be some kind of reasonable risk-assessment conducted as well.
It's all the more terrible when such a "risk" fails so spectacularly.
On the issue of NLS' trimester system, their V-C's counsel called it "hellish" in open court if my memory serves right. Pandemics have often shifted prevailing paradigms and it may be a good time for NLS to reconsider their system if it has to take such hilarious "risks" to keep it going.
It's a real possibility that everyone else is right and you are wrong, innit?
'Nothing more but mere state colleges' last i checked, (since the case on this is still pending in the Karnataka HC), NLSIU is still one governed by its statute which was passed by a State Government, the very one that the SC cites in today's judgement, and until there is a change in this regard law school is perhaps 'nothing more but mere state college'.
#nationaliseNLUs and where the hell can i find a copy of the Varun Bhagat case?
At any rate, Krishnaswamy's actions post the postponement of CLAT hardly let him get away without cake on his face. Shafting a consortium one owes duties to and covertly planning something entirely different without due notice is hardly some great feat of administration.
[...]
PS: at haters and Shameerpet Refugee, Venkata Rao sends his regards. Also, being a Law Schoolite, thank you everyone including LI and other media for staying on this, thank you RVR for not forgetting about us whom you guided like your own flock, and last but not least, thank you Faizan for really showing leadership. Sir, you are a good man. I promise to not make Nalsar jokes for a year at least, as my token of gratitude.
It would be ridiculous if a V-C who shouted hoarse about delaying the semester decides to entrench himself in such a terrible position and delay things even further.
Most people here are frustrated lawyer trolls whose only achievement has been to clear CLAT and then maybe to have gotten a job at some law firm. Post-law school, they have nothing better to do than to speculate and spread ill-willed gossip about every law school. Most of them probably can't even afford JGLS.
I'm not from Jindal myself, but having interned and interacted with folks from there, I can say that a number of them (not all) are as competent as most above-average NLU students these days (if you consider NLU students to be very competent) and better than most people from other private law schools. It wouldn't make a massive difference to your life if you chose to continue there rather than go to a NLU. I know quite a people who have done that. Although, I'd still recommend taking the CLAT again since you dropped a year for it. You could still get one of the NIRF top 3.
As for NUJS, NLIU and NLUJ (since that's what you want to hear from your quotes on 'top 3'), they each have around 20-odd NRI-quota/sponsored seats (the top 3 don't, except for Foreign Nationals), so if you're going to them by that route, then you might as well go to JGLS and have a more comfortable five years, in my opinion. Plus, JGLS' location to the NCR is an added advantage compared to the others.
continuing, its a mixed answer, you took a drop year so in my opinion take the full advantage of it, do write clat, if nothing else for the heck of the fact that you paid for the exam. Is Jindal any lesser of a college than any of the NLUs...no, its a pretty good college with perhaps really great facilities and some pretty enviable faculty. But perhaps what difference you might find in an NLU (apart from slightly old buildings and questionable facilities on campus) is the advantage of a smaller batch size, where you interact with nearly every one in your batch and campus, and really great alumni that you might to personally interact.
At this stage the only thing that jindal might lack is that close knit interactions that exist for almost all of the students. But yeah in the end its a personal call, a drop year does take its toll eventually, you deserve a good college life and honestly either would do, its up to you to take advantage of it.
stand on behalf of the CLAT that online test at home
with technological measures cannot ensure transparency
and the test will be completely compromised and may
even be manipulated by participants and coaching
centres. There was no reason for change of mind by
respondent No.2 within a week. Affidavit was sworn on
25.08.2020 by respondent No.2 and on 03.09.2020 after a
week, notification was issued for conducting NLAT
permitting participants to join online examination
sitting at their home. When something was not to be
permitted, when home based online test could not have
been permitted for CLAT-2020, the same test can also
not be permitted for NLAT-2020.[/quote] Para. 91 of the Judgement. Read between the lines? SK seems to lack credibility to hold a statutory position entrusted by law to run an educational institute.
But by making him R2, they got the Court to highlight that the same individual had signed a sworn affidavit in the Delhi HC about the flaws of at-home exams in a case that the general public didn’t know about - this was Faizan using his insider knowledge about the NLU Consortium matters.
Once it became RVR vs Sudhir, RVR just said “look, R2 himself argued the opposite by signing that affidavit”. Excellent court craft. Kudos, folx!
Sudhir: Felt cute, might quash later.
SC: Too right you would.
para 83
"NLS gets sucked back into the mediocrity that is CLAT."
This despite Reddy being a former NALSAR prof himself.
Delhi HC advocate Chirayu Jain has posted:
"I am sticking to my theory: NLS admin came up with the entire NLAT charade only to kick out the CLAT Consortium from the campus. And we were successful at that."
Jain has also posted the following:
"NALSAR is as good as the triangular scales in geometry box. Is there any use for either? Nope."
"Why is NALSAR VC complaining about NLS-CLAT break up? I mean isn't it finally a moment for the photocopy law school NALSAR to rise and shine? OH WAIT, photocopies can't shine"
"Seriously, has anyone filed an RTI asking what is the point of having NALSAR?"
"Top 5 reasons why NALSAR exists:Number 1: No reason."
"NALSAR is void ab initio! Prove me wrong!"
https://twitter.com/Preddy85/status/1307922565327798272
https://twitter.com/chirayuuuu/status/1307948934547959808
https://twitter.com/chirayuuuu/status/1302344700934852608
https://twitter.com/chirayuuuu/status/1302249268443402241
https://twitter.com/chirayuuuu/status/1302269405871570946
https://twitter.com/chirayuuuu/status/1302238070478004224
https://twitter.com/chirayuuuu/status/1302248257754525702
With this scam of an exam quashed, I wonder if the HC will render its final judgement before CLAT. The grounds taken by NLS for avoiding the quota are specious to say the least, but with the level of HC judgments these days, that issue could go either way, it looks like. The way NLS (through its VC) has conducted itself over the past few months has really been quite disgraceful and hopefully they're put in their place once all is said and done.
Also interesting to watch will be the NUJS domicile quota case. The Cal HC has sought a reply from NUJS. Will the NUJS admin and student body indirectly support NLSIU's claim that NUJS is a state university like KSLU? Note that the SC order today identifies NUJS as an institution that "followed NLSIU's footsteps" and the CJI is the Chancellor of both.
1. Established under WBNUJS Act 1999 passed by the state legislature. Not under an Act of the Parliament.
2. Under the WB Govt Rules of Business, WBNUJS has been placed under the admin control and responsibility of the Judicial Dept, WB Govt. Guess we can make similar checks for other state govts.
3. Received UGC affiliation and grants as a "state university"
4. Not IoE or INI. I doubt any state university has INI status.
5. WBNUJS has allegedly violated UGC rules on distance education, lacks BCI affiliation since 2011, unpaid Income Taxes amount to over Rs 7.6 crores (of which IT took away over Rs 4.6 crores), unpaid GST running into crores, refunded over Rs 4 crores to UGC, FCRA violations and the list goes on. Icing on the cake, the VC is coming up with various tricks to pass off contractual teach as whole-time faculty etc to somehow get NAAC tag and dress up NIRF score.
6. Wonder why Calcutta HC is wasting time. Could have asked the brother judge on NUJS EC. But that would have been err.....best left unsaid.
2. Mr Sudhir Created unnecessary distrust in consortium
3. If its not a law school university, I would have blamed VC only for bad decision not for poor knowledge of law. But here an Ex NLSIU grad, Law researcher showed very poor knowledge Law. It surely tarnished the reputation of a great Organization built through years by stalwarts
4. NLAT decision made without even minimal sympathetic consideration of 70000 aspirants who are preparing for 2.5 years. How he will make future lawyers who will be sympathetic, concerned for the weaker section of the society
5. I will also blame Executive Committee comprising HC/SC judges and big Lawyers for approving this poor, whimsical NLAT proposition
Is Mr. Sudhir accountable by any means for all the above high cost and high impact mistakes? Or he can shrug off this SC scolding as "Minor issue" or "No Probs" !?