9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1318 - SC - Indian LawsLocus to file the writ petition - admission of the students to the five year integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme 2020-2021 - Respondent No. 1 being founder member of Consortium of National Law Universities, a registered society, is bound by its Bye-Laws and was obliged to admit the students for integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme through CLAT 2020 - online home proctored examination as proposed by notification dated 03.09.2020, lacks transparency or not - retest was marred by malpractices or not. Whether the Petitioners have locus to file the writ petition? - HELD THAT - The Memorandum of Association of Consortium of National Law Universities, which is a registered society under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 registered on 26.03.2019 contains a list of Initial Members Subscribers of the Consortium in which name of Petitioner No. 2 was mentioned as Member Subscriber No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 being Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No. 1 became the ex-officio Secretary Treasurer of the Society, his details are also mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Memorandum. A person, who has worked as Vice-chancellor of Respondent No. 1 and was also member of Consortium, which is entrusted to conduct CLAT, he is fully competent to espouse the cause of education by means of the writ petition - the objection of the Respondent that Petitioners have no locus to file the writ petition is rejected. Whether the admission notification dated 03.09.2020 by Respondent No. 1 could have been issued only after recommendations to that effect by the Academic Council, which is the statutory authority under the Act, 1986 for admission of the students to the five year integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme 2020-2021? - HELD THAT - There can be no dispute that Executive Council is the Chief Executive Body of the school and the administration, management and control of the school is vested in the Executive Council and in the administration, right to admit the students is included but the Statute has to be further looked into to find out as to whether there are any other statutory provisions to regulate the admission of students or there is any other authority of the school, which is vested with the power to take decision regarding admission of the students. Admissions to the school, thus, were contemplated to be under the control of Academic Council and the appointment of committees was with the purpose to monitor and conduct the admission of the school. When the Act was enacted in 1986, no procedure was in place regarding admission and the Statute empowered the Executive Council to appoint committees for admission to the school. By virtue of Clause 14(16) with regard to appointment of committees for admission to the school, the Academic Council was to perform all such duties and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the provisions of the Act . Thus, the above statutory provision gave all incidental power to the Academic Council in relation to the admission. 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 - 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. Whether the Respondent No. 1 being founder member of Consortium of National Law Universities, a registered society, is bound by its Bye-Laws and was obliged to admit the students for integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme through CLAT 2020? - HELD THAT - As provided by UGC guidelines which guidelines have been continued by subsequent guidelines dated 06.07.2020, the UGC expected the Universities to carry on some amendments in their academic calendar for the session 2020-21. The Universities are not powerless to modify their Academic Calendar looking to the pandemic. The Academic year 2020-21 is not a normal academic year in which Universities are expected to carry on their teaching and other activities in normal mode and manner. The Respondent No. 1 University could have very well found out ways and means to start the academic Under-Graduate Law course even if it starts in mid of October 2020 after conduct of the CLAT on 28.09.2020. 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. It is concluded 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. Whether online home proctored examination as proposed by notification dated 03.09.2020, lacks transparency, was against the very concept of fair examination and violative of the rights of the students Under Article 14 of the Constitution? - HELD THAT - The Respondent No. 2 had categorically taken the 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 - there are substance in the submissions of the Petitioner that permitting of home based online test could not have ensured transparency, fairness and integrity of the examination especially when the test was to be conducted for entrance into a premier Law University of the country. Thus, 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. Whether NLAT held on 12.09.2020 with retest on 14.09.2020 was marred by malpractices and deserves to be set aside? - HELD THAT - 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, there are no doubt that it must have taken all necessary precautions to avoid any malpractices and cheating in the examination - the University has also filed a complaint of Cyber Crime which may be inquired in accordance with law - thus, Admission notification dated 03.09.2020 issued by Respondent No. 1 was not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside. Conclusion - (i) The notice for admission to the five year integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) programme 2020-21 dated 03.09.2020 Annexure-P 14 as well as Press Release on NLSIU admission 2020-21 dated 04.09.2020 Annexure-P 15 are quashed. (ii) The Respondent No. 3 is directed to conduct the CLAT-2020 examination on 28.09.2020 taking all precautions and care for health of the students after following the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (iii) The Respondent No. 3 shall also ensure that the entire process of declaration of the result be completed as early as possible to enable the Respondent No. 1 and other National Law Universities to start their course by the mid of October-2020. (iv) The Respondent No. 1 shall also complete the admission of B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) programme 2020-21 on the basis of the result of CLAT-2020. (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. SLP disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The judgment addresses the following core legal questions:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Locus Standi of the Petitioners
Issue 2: Role of the Academic Council
Issue 3: Obligations Under the Consortium's Bye-Laws
Issue 4: Transparency and Fairness of the Online Home Proctored Examination
Issue 5: Malpractices in NLAT
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
In conclusion, the judgment reinstated the primacy of statutory and regulatory frameworks in governing educational institutions and emphasized the need for transparent and fair admission processes, aligning with the broader objectives of national interest and educational excellence.
|
