Summary
The Court quashed NLSIU’s separate 2020 admission notice and directed admission through CLAT. Academic Council recommendations were required for changing the mode and manner of admission; general executive powers did not displace that statutory role. Consortium membership also bound the University to CLAT. The short-notice home examination and technical demands denied equal opportunity. Actual malpractice allegations were left to factual investigation, and disruption of the academic calendar did not justify the departure.
Issues
- Whether the public-interest petition was maintainable.
- Whether the Executive Council could authorize a new admission test without Academic Council recommendations.
- Whether Consortium membership and equality requirements permitted the separate home examination.
- Whether actual malpractice required determination and what admission relief followed.
Provisions considered
- Sections 10, 11, 13 and 18; Schedule, Clause 14(7) and (16), National Law School of India Act, 1986Read together to require Academic Council recommendations on admission mode notwithstanding general executive administration powers. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaShort notice and technical requirements denied many students equal opportunity to participate. (¶¶ 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95)
Held
- The former Vice-Chancellor’s experience and role in establishing the Consortium supported standing to espouse the educational cause. Affected student applicants were also before the Court; the locus objection was rejected. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35)
- Administrative and regulation-making powers were distinct; absence of regulations did not extinguish general administrative power. Nevertheless, the statutory scheme entrusted admission mode and manner to the Academic Council. Executive resolutions could not dispense with its recommendations before introducing the materially different NLAT. (¶¶ 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62)
- Consortium bye-laws, though non-statutory, bound its continuing members to merit-based admission through CLAT. Institutional autonomy did not negate those obligations or the public duty to act fairly and transparently. (¶¶ 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76)
- The pandemic disrupted all academic calendars, and UGC guidelines contemplated suitable modifications. The asserted need to avoid a zero year did not establish necessity for a separate test; the University could adapt its calendar after CLAT. (¶¶ 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86)
- On the record, the home test could not ensure the requisite transparency and integrity. Short notice and demanding technical requirements excluded a substantial body of aspirants, especially marginalised students, violating equality of opportunity. (¶¶ 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95)
- Whether particular malpractices actually occurred required scrutiny of facts and evidence and was not decided in the Article 32 proceeding. The cybercrime complaint could be investigated according to law. (¶¶ 102, 103)
- CLAT was to proceed on 28 September 2020 with health safeguards and prompt results, and NLSIU was to admit through it. The Consortium could promptly consider restoring its Secretary-Treasurer and Secretariat without hampering the scheduled examination. (¶¶ 105, 106, 107, 108)
Result
Writ petition allowed; 3 September admission notice and 4 September press release quashed. CLAT on 28 September 2020 directed with health protocols, early results and NLSIU admission through CLAT. Consortium to consider early restoration of prior offices and Secretariat. Connected SLP disposed of without further orders.