IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. _________ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:Xenia Dhar & Ors

… Petitioners
Versus

National Law School of India University & Ors.

… Respondents

I.A. NO ______________ OF 2020
Application for permission to bring on record
additional/subsequent facts
AND
I.A. NO ______________ OF 2020
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the
impugned order
AND
I.A. NO ______________ OF 2020
Application for exemption from filing notarized affidavits

PAPER BOOK
( FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: KUSH CHATURVEDI

 INDEX
S. No.

Particulars of documents

Page No of part to
which it belongs
Part-I
(Contents
of paper
book)

(i)

(ii)

Part -II
(Contents
of file
alone)

(iii)

(iv)

1.

Court Fees

2.

Office Report on Limitation

3.

Listing Proforma

4.

Cover Page on Paper Book

A-3

5.

Index
of
Proceedings

A-4

6.

Defect Sheet

A-6

7.

Note Sheet

NS1 to

8.

Synopsis and List of Dates

9.

Copy of the impugned Final 1 – 9
Judgment and Order dated
11.09.2020 passed in Writ
Petition (C) No. 2454 of
2020

10.

Record

A-A1

of

B–U

Special Leave Petition with 10 – 28
affidavit thereof

Remarks

A-A1

(v)

 11.

Annexure P-1

29 – 59

Copy of the Bye – Laws of
the CLAT consortium
12.

Annexure P-2

60 – 61

Copy of the press release
for CLAT 2020 dated
11.12.2020
13.

Annexure P-3

62

Copy of the notification of
the CLAT consortium dated
21.04.2020
14.

Annexure P-4

63

Copy of the notification of
the CLAT consortium dated
18.05.2020
15.

Annexure P-5

64 – 65

Copy of the notification of
the CLAT consortium dated
29.06.2020
16.

Annexure P-6

66 – 70

Copy
of
the
list
of
examination
centers
released by the CLAT
consortium
dated
21.04.2020
17.

Annexure P-7

71

Copy of the notification of
the CLAT consortium dated
05.08.2020
18.

Annexure P-8

72 – 73

Copy of the notification of
the CLAT consortium dated
10.08.2020
19.

Annexure P-9

74

 Copy of the notification of
the CLAT consortium dated
28.08.2020
20.

Annexure P-10

75 – 81

Copy of the admission
notification of NLSIU
21.

Annexure P-11

82 – 83

Copy of the press release of
NLSIU dated 04.09.2020
22.

Annexure P-12

84 – 96

Copy of the Writ Petition
bearing WP (C) No. 2454 of
2020
filed
by
the
Petitioners
23.

Annexure P-13

97 – 99

Copy of the order dated
11.09.2020 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in WP (C) No.
1030 of 2020
24.

I.A. No. ________ of 2020

100 – 103

Application for permission
to
bring
on
record
additional/subsequent
facts
25.

I.A. No. ________ of 2020

104 – 106

Application for exemption
from filing certified copy of
the impugned order
26.

I.A. No. ________ of 2020

107 – 109

Application for exemption
from
filing
notarized
affidavits
27.

F/M

110

 28.

V/A

111 – 115

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.

OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:
Xenia Dhar & Ors

… Petitioners
Versus

National Law School of India University & Ors.

…Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION
1.

The Petition is/are within time.

2.

The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of _________days
in filing the same against the Final order dated _____ petition for
condonation of __________ days delay has been filed.

3.

There is delay of ____________________ days in refiling the petition
and petition

for condonation of ______________ days delay in

refiling has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER
NEW DELHI.
Dated: 12.09.2020

 PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION:
This case pertains to (Please tick/ check the correct box):
Central Act: (Title)

Constitution of India

Section :

Article 136

Central
(Title)

Rule

:

N.A

Rule No(s)

N.A

State Act: (Title)

N.A

Section :

N.A

State Rule : (Title)

N.A

Rule No(s):

N.A

Impugned Interim Order :
(Date)
Impugned
Final
/Decree : (Date)
High
Court
(Name)
Names of Judges:

Order

N.A.
N.A

: N.A
N.A

Tribunal /Authority …………………………………………….
: (Name)
1.

Nature
matter

2.

a)Petitioner/Appellant
No.1.:
b)

of

the

Email I.D.

Civil

Criminal

kushchaturvedi@gmail.com

c)
Mobile phone (+91) 9711114870
number:
3.

a)

Respondent No.1

b)

Email I.D.

National Law School of India
University & Ors.
N/A

 c)
Mobile phone
number:
4.

a)Main
classification
b)

N/A

category

18

Sub classification :

5.

Not to be listed before:

6.

(a) Similar disposed of
matter with citation, if
any, & case:

1807
N/A
No similar matter disposed if

(d) Similar pending Writ Petition (C) No. 1030 of
matter
with
case 2020; ‘Rakesh Kumar
Agarwalla & Anr. v. National
details:
Law School of India University,
Bengaluru & Ors.’
7.

Criminal Matters:

N.A

a) Whether accused /convict has
surrendered:
b) FIR No………....

Yes

N.A

Date :
c) Police Station:

N.A

d) Sentenced awarded
e) period of Sentence
Undergone
including
period
of
Detention/Custody
Undergone:
8.

9.

Land
Matters:

N.A
N.A

Acquisition …...…………………....N/A

a)
Date of
notification :

Section 4 …...…………N.A

b)
Date of
notification :

Section 6 …...…………N.A

c) Date of
notification

Section 17 …...…………N.A

Tax Matters :
Tax effect:

State the …...…………N.A

No

 10. Special Category:
appellant only):

(first

Senior citizen>65 years
/child
Disabled

legal

petitioner/

N.A

SC/ ST
Aid case

Woman
in custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident …………
Claim matters) :
12. Decided case with citation : …………………………………

KUSH CHATURVEDI
AOR CODE 1979
Email. kushchaturvedi@gmail.com
Ph: 9711114870
Dated: 12.09.2020

  SYNOPSIS
The genesis of the present dispute lies in the wholly arbitrary
action of the National Law School of India University,
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “NLSIU”) to, inter alia,
declare a separate examination i.e. National Law Aptitude
Test (hereinafter referred to as “NLAT”) for admission to its
Five Years B. A., LL.B. (Hons.)

degree examination for

admission to the current academic year i.e. 2020-21. This
unilateral action on the part of NLSIU amounts to changing
the rules of the game mid-way inasmuch as the Common
Law Admission Test Consortium (hereinafter referred to as
“the CLAT Consortium”), of which NLSIU is admittedly a
member, had already opened registration for the Common
Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred to as “CLAT”) as far
back as in January 2020 for admission to the Five Year Law
Course in 23 National Law Schools all over the Country,
including NLSIU.
The Petitioners, who are all students desirous of obtaining
admission in the top Law Schools in the country, had
registered for the CLAT, which was scheduled to be held on
10.05.2020. However, due to the ongoing COVID – 19

 pandemic, the conduct of the CLAT was postponed to
24.05.2020 and now to 28.09.2020.
In the meantime, on 03.09.2020, the NLSIU came up with a
Notification, inter alia, indicating that it would not accept
CLAT 2020 scores for admission to Academic Year 2020-21
and instead would admit only those students who competed
in the NLAT, which was scheduled with a notice of less than
10 days i.e. on 12.09.2020.
The Petitioners, who are all residents of Jharkhand and were
scheduled to appear in the CLAT from examination centres
located in Jharkhand, were constrained to challenge the
above-mentioned Notification dated 03.09.2020 issued by
the NLSIU by way of a Writ Petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 2454
of 2020 before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court. The
Petitioners moved the Hon’ble High Court promptly i.e. on
04.09.2020. However, by virtue of the impugned Judgment
and Final Order dated 11.09.2020, the Hon’ble High Court
erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the
Petitioners

without

entering

into

the

merits

of

the

controversy. Instead the Hon’ble High Court refused to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction primarily on the point

 that the issue had a pan India ramification. However, the
Hon’ble High Court also found (erroneously) as under:i.

That

it

had

no

territorial

jurisdiction

to

adjudicate the dispute as it primarily seemed to
be a dispute between the CLAT Consortium and
NLSIU;
ii.

That W.P. (C) No. 1030 of 2020 titled ‘Rakesh
Kumar Agarwalla v. National Law School of India
University, Bengaluru & Ors.’ is pending before
this Hon’ble Court raising similar issue.

At the outset, it is submitted that the above-mentioned W. P.
(C) No. 1030 of 2020 was listed before this Hon’ble Court on
11.09.2020 wherein, inter alia, the following Order was
passed:“… By this petition the Petitioner has challenged the
admission notification released on 04.09.2020 by
National Law School of India University, Bengaluru for
admission to the Five-Years Integrated B.A., LL.B
(Hons.) Programme, 2020-21. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that Common Law Admission Test
has already been notified and Respondent no. 1 is also
part of it and now it is postponed to 28th September,
2020. It is submitted that no separate admission test by
National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
could have been held which has been notified to be held.
Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the National Law School of India University,

 Bengaluru submits that examination is scheduled for
tomorrow i.e. 12.09.2020 and all preparations have
been made for conducting the admission test. Various
other legal submissions have been made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
Looking to the importance of the issues raised in this
petition, we are of the view that all respondents may be
permitted to file their reply to the writ petition and
thereafter the matter may be heard and decided. Mr.
Datar submits that he will file the reply within three
days.
Let all the respondents may file their reply within three
days.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed thereafter, by the next date of
hearing.
List the matter on 16.09.2020.
In the meantime, the examination for admission in
pursuance of Notification dated 04.09.2020 may take
place but neither the result shall be declared nor any
admission be made consequent thereto. We make it
clear that conducting of examination shall be subject to
the outcome of the writ petition…”

The Petitioners, without prejudice to their rights and
contentions regarding the legality of the NLAT, by way of
abundant caution, were constrained to appear in the NLAT
on 12.09.2020. The Petitioners (and other similar students)
are prejudiced by the holding of the separate NLAT for the
following reasons:i.

CLAT was designed so that aspirants would not
have to appear for multiple examinations for

 admission to the Five Years Law Course. It was
designed to benefit the students.
The entire purpose of CLAT would be frustrated by the
holding of a separate NLAT by NLSIU as is sought to be done
for the current academic year. Moreso, in the current
scenario, where during the Covid-19 pandemic, aspirants
would have to expose themselves to further risk by appearing
for multiple examinations;
i.

NLSIU ought not to be permitted to change the
rules of the game midway. The Petitioners had
registered for CLAT as far back as in January
2020 on the understanding that the same would
govern admission to 23 National Law Schools all
over the country, including the NLSIU.

Now NLSIU ought not to be permitted to resile from its earlier
position and to conduct a separate examination;
ii.

The Petitioners, who were preparing for the
CLAT, which was scheduled on 28.09.2020, were
suddenly informed on 04.09.2020 (i.e. when the
NLAT Circular dated 03.09.2020 was published)
about the proposed NLAT on 12.09.2020. It is

 submitted that the Petitioners did not have
sufficient time to prepare for the NLAT;
iii.

That CLAT was supposed to be held in multiple
test centres all over the country. For e.g. in
Jharkhand alone, there were 5 (five) test centres
for CLAT i.e. at Bokaro Steel City, Dhanbad,
Hazaribagh, Jamshedpur and Ranchi.

However, the NLAT was conceived to be a home-based
proctored online examination wherein candidates were to
attempt the examination using a computer device at their
respective location. It is submitted that a home proctored
admission test may not be able to curb the menace of
cheating thereby jeopardizing the entire admission process
as was recently witnessed in a home proctored exam by a
leading private university in the country. In view of the
demands of many students to have test centres across the
country due to non-availability of adequate resources to
appear in a home proctored test, NLSIU made certain
arrangements for the same. However, it is submitted that the
arrangements were inadequate and prejudicial to the
interest of students in the current circumstances.

 Further, the conduct of the NLAT on 12.09.2020 also left a
lot to be desired, for the following reasons:
1. multiple issues related to verification, login, and
facial recognition through their webcams.
2. complaints regarding not being able to take
simulation exams.
3. great difficulty in contacting physical test centres
for registration.
4. test centres in only 40 cities in the country
(centres only in 20 States & 3 UTs, leaving 8
states and 5 UTs without any test centre).
5. less time being given than scheduled time of 45
minutes.
6. automatic submission of test paper much before
scheduled time.
7. arbitrary warnings being given to the candidates.
8. inadequate infrastructure at test centres.
9. unresponsive helpline number.

 10.

various

complaints

made

to

NLSIU

regarding use of unfair means by candidates.
Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

LIST OF DATES

Date

Particulars

1987

The National Law School of India University (hereinafter
referred to as NLSIU) was established under the
Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1986 (NLSIU Act). It was set up
as an autonomous institute that offered five year
integrated undergraduate law degree of B.A. LL.B (Hons.)
as a way of second generation reformation of legal
education.

1998

The second National Law University, i.e. National
Academy of Legal Studies and Research was established
at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as NALSAR).
Thereafter, a number of National law Universities (NLU)
were established in different states with the primary
objective

of

providing

highest

standards

of

legal

 education

and

comparable

with

to

make
the

Indian

most

legal

reputed

education

international

institutions of legal educations. As such, 23 NLUs have
been established in various states of India.

2006

As

separate

entrance

procedures

and

tests

were

conducted by these NLUs, a PIL bearing WP (C) No. 68 of
2006 entitled “Varun Bhagat v. Union of India”, was
preferred before this Hon’ble Court seeking a single test
for admission to all the NLUs, which led to the Vice –
Chancellors of first seven NLUs to sign a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU), declaring the institution of a
Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). Consequently, the
first CLAT exam was conducted in 2008.

2015

A revised MOU was signed by National Law Universities
to include another seven National Law Universities
within the ambit of the CLAT. In the meanwhile, a PIL
bearing WP (C) No. 600 of 2015 was filed by the by Late
Professor Shamnad Bashir before this Hon’ble Court
seeking establishment of a permanent secretariat with a
permanent body to look into the conduct of CLAT.

 2018

This Hon’ble Court in WP (C) No. 551 of 2018 entitled
“Disha Panchal v. Union of India” directed the Ministry of
Human Resource and Development, Government of
India, to ensure that CLAT is conducted in a just and fair
manner.

17.10.2018

A permanent CLAT Secretariat was established in the
premises of NLSIU, Bengaluru and a decision for CLAT
to be conducted by the Executive Committee of CLAT
consortium was made.

26.03.2019

The Consortium of National law Universities (hereinafter
referred as “CLAT consortium”) was registered at
Bengaluru under the Karnataka Societies Registration
Act, 1960, wherein 16 NLUs signed as founding
members. As such, the CLAT Consortium became a legal
entity. It is pertinent to note that all the remaining NLUs,
except

National

Law

University,

Delhi,

have

subsequently joined CLAT consortium. It is further
pertinent to note that the CLAT consortium has three
permanent

members,

namely,

NLSIU,

Bengaluru,

 NALSAR, Hyderabad, National Law Institute University,
Bhopal, and the Vice-Chancellor of NLSIU, Bengaluru is
Ex-officio Secretary of the CLAT consortium.

Copy of the Bye – Laws of the CLAT consortium is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P – 1 (Pgs.
____ to ____)

11.12.2019

The Executive Committee of the CLAT consortium issued
a press release stipulating the timeline and mode of
conduct of CLAT 2020. The timeline stipulated that the
applications for CLAT 2020 were to be issued on
01.01.2020 with the last date of submission being
31.03.2020, pursuant to which the exam was to be
conducted on 10.05.2020. The CLAT consortium, from
time to time, also updated the list of NLUs that would
accept test scores of CLAT 2020 for admissions, and
NLSIU was invariably a part of the list.

NOTE: Pertinently, the Petitioners herein have filled their
registration forms within the prescribed time period.

 Copy of the press release for CLAT 2020 dated
11.12.2020

is

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

ANNEXURE P – 2 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

14.03.2020

That the Government of India declared COVID – 19
pandemic as a notified disaster under the Disaster
Management Act on 14.03.2020 and subsequently a pan
India lockdown was imposed by the Central Government.

21.04.2020

The CLAT consortium by their notification extended the
deadline for CLAT 2020 to 18.05.2020 and postponed the
examination to 21.06.2020.

Copy of the notification of the CLAT consortium dated
21.04.2020

is

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

ANNEXURE P – 3 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

18.05.2020

The CLAT consortium by their notification further
extended the deadline for CLAT 2020 to 01.06.2020 and
postponed the examination to a future date with a

 stipulation that the same would be notified 21 days prior
to the conduct of the examination.

Copy of the notification of the CLAT consortium dated
18.05.2020

is

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

ANNEXURE P – 4 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

29.06.2020

The Executive Committee of the CLAT consortium held a
meeting wherein a decision to conduct CLAT 2020
through computer – based, online, centre-based test was
taken. Further, CLAT 2020 examination was postponed
to 22.08.2020, with a full list of updated examination
centres for conduct of online exams.

Copy of the notification of the CLAT consortium dated
29.06.2020

is

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

ANNEXURE P – 5 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

Copy of the list of examination centers released by the
CLAT consortium dated 21.04.2020 is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE P – 6 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

 05.08.2020

The CLAT consortium by its notification postponed CLAT
2020 examination until further notice.

Copy of the notification of the CLAT consortium dated
05.08.2020

is

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

ANNEXURE P – 7 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

10.08.2020

The CLAT consortium by its notification announced
07.09.2020 as the date of CLAT 2020 examination.
Copy of the notification of the CLAT consortium dated
10.08.2020

is

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

ANNEXURE P – 8 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

12.08.2020

In the event CLAT 2020 examination was further

&

rescheduled from 07.09.2020, the Executive Council of

18.08.2020

NLSIU in its 91st Meeting, held in two sessions,
unanimously resolved to authorise the University to
undertake an alternative admission process in order to
avoid a “Zero Year”.

 28.08.2020

The CLAT consortium, keeping in mind the COVID – 19
situation and the lockdowns imposed in West Bengal and
Bihar, by its notification further postponed CLAT 2020
examination to 28.09.2020.

Copy of the notification of the CLAT consortium dated
28.08.2020

is

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

‘Notice

for

ANNEXURE P – 9 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

03.09.2020

NLSIU

issued

a

notification

entitled

admissions to the five year integrated B.A. LL.B (Hons.)
Programme, 2020 -2021’, unilaterally withdrawing from
CLAT 2020 and establishing its own admission test
process National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) for admission
to its Five Years B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) degree programme
on 12.09.2020.

NOTE: A subsequent press release dated 04.09.2020
issued by NLSIU informed that the online application
portal for NLAT was open for a mere week from
03.09.2020 to 10.09.2020. The examination was to be
conducted from the candidate’s own location and would

 be proctored through Artificial Intelligence and Human
Proctoring.

NOTE 2: NLSIU also released a notification stipulating
Technical/System requirement for the conduct of NLAT,
which specified an internet bandwidth of at least 512
Kbps to ensure continuous streaming of Audio and Video
data during the examination in addition to minimum
system requirements.

1.

NOTE 3: The Vice Chancellor of NALSAR, expressed his
dismay that while NLSIU wishes to continue in the
consortium yet conduct its own admission test which is
not permissible under the Bye Laws of the consortium.

Copy of the admission notification of NLSIU is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P – 10 (Pgs. ____ to
____)
Copy of the press release of NLSIU dated 04.09.2020 is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P – 11
(Pgs. ____ to ____)

 04.09.2020

The Governing Body of CLAT consortium released a press
statement requesting the Vice Chancellor of NLSIU to
reconsider its decision of conducting a separate entrance
examination. The press release also noted that the action
of NLSIU was in violation of Rule 15.3.3 of the
Consortium Bye – Laws. The Press release, further,
warned that the act of NLSIU may warrant shifting of
permanent secretariate outside NLSIU.

NOTE: By a subsequent press release dated 06.09.2020,
the CLAT consortium resolved that the actions of NLSIU
was in derogation of the Bye – Laws of the Consortium
and divested the Vice Chancellor of NLSIU from his
position as the Secretary – Treasurer of the Consortium.
The CLAT consortium further resolved to shift the
permanent

secretariate

from

NLSIU

to

NALSAR,

Hyderabad.
NOTE 2: NLSIU in a press release of its own dated
06.09.2020 alleged that the consortium’s decision of
postponing

CLAT

2020

by

its

notification

dated

 05.08.2020 and on 28.08.2020 was not a unanimous
decision. NLSIU further denied any allegations of
violating the Bye-Laws of the consortium and maintained
that the actions of the CLAT consortium issued by its
press release dated 06.09.2020 is illegal.

04.09.2020

Aggrieved by the act of NLSIU, the Petitioners preferred
a Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 2454 of 2020 seeking
quashing of notification dated 03.09.2020 issued by the
National Law School of India University, Benguluru,
declaring that a separate examination for admission to
its Five Tears B.A. LL.B (hons.) degree programme will be
held on 12.09.2020.

Copy of the Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 2454 of 2020
filed by the Petitioners is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE P – 12 (Pgs. ____ to ____)

11.09.2020

This Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No.
1030

of

2020

challenging

the

abovementioned

 notification dated 03.09.2020 issued by NLSIU, inter alia,
passed the following direction:
“In the meantime, the examination for admission in
pursuance of Notification dated 04.09.2020 may
take place but neither the result shall be declared
nor any admission be made consequent thereto. We
make it clear that conducting of examination shall
be subject to the outcome of the writ petition."

Copy of the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in WP (C) No. 1030 of 2020 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P – 13 (Pgs. ____ to
____)

11.09.2020

The Hon’ble High Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the
Petitioners seeking quashing of the admissions notice
issued by NLSIU declaring that a separate examination
for admission to its Five Tears B.A. LL.B (hons.) degree
programme will be held on 12.09.2020.

 NOTE: The Petitioners, without prejudice to their rights
and contentions regarding the legality of the NLAT, by
way of abundant caution, were constrained to appear in
the NLAT on 12.09.2020.

12.09.2020

Hence the present Special Leave Petition.

 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2454 of 2020
----1. Xenia Dhar
2. Palak Sharma
3. Gaurav Mitra
4. Vishal Raj Singh
5. Aditya Raj
.......... Petitioners.
-Versus1. The National Law School of India University, through its Registrar,
Nagarbhavi, P.S. Mallathahalli, Bangalore-560072.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Education,
Shashtri Bhawan, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Bar Council of India, through the Chairman, 21, Rouse Avenue,
Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110002.
4. The Consortium of National Law Universities, Nagarbhavi, P.S.
Mallathahalli, Bangalore-560072.
.......... Respondents.
----CORAM : HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----For the Petitioners :
M/s Shubham Gautam &
Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocates
For Respondent no.1:
Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Advocate &
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent no.2:
Ms Shreesha Sinha, A.C. to ASGI
For Respondent no.4:
Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
----Order No.03
Date: 11.09.2020
1.

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

2.

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the notice
dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the
National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, declaring that a
separate examination for admission to its Five Years B.A, LL.B. (Hons.)
degree programme will be held on 12.09.2020.

3.

The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that
the in the year 1987 the first National Law University namely, the
National Law School of India University was established in Bengaluru,
Karnataka (hereinafter referred as ‘NLSIU, Bengaluru )- respondent
no.1 in furtherance of second-generation reforms of legal education.
Thereafter, a number of National Law Universities have been
established in different States with the primary objective of providing
highest standards of legal education and to make Indian legal
education comparable with the most reputed international institutions
of legal education. Till date 23 NLUs have been established in various
states of India. A PIL being CWP No. 68 of 2006 was filed in the

 2

Supreme Court of India in the year 2006 seeking test for admission to
all the NLUs and thereafter in the year 2008 seven National Law
Universities signed a Memorandum of Understanding to hold Common
Law Admission Test (CLAT). The first CLAT examination was conducted
in the year 2008. Subsequently in 2015, a revised Memorandum of
Understanding was signed by NLUs to include other seven National
Law Universities within the ambit of the CLAT. In the meanwhile, a PIL
was filed seeking establishment of a permanent secretariat with a
permanent body to look into the conduct of CLAT and the Supreme
Court of India directed the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India to ensure that CLAT is conducted in a just and
fair manner. Thereafter, on 17.10.2018 a permanent CLAT Secretariat
was established at Bengaluru and it was decided that CLAT would be
conducted by the Executive Committee of CLAT consortium.
Thereafter, on 26.03.2019 the CLAT consortium was registered at
Bengaluru under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act wherein 16
NLUs signed as founding members and consequently the CLAT
Consortium became a legal entity. Subsequently, all the remaining
NLUs except National Law University, Delhi joined CLAT consortium
which has three permanent members namely National Law School of
India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru; National Academy of Legal
Studies and Research, Hyderabad; National Law Institute University,
Bhopal and the Vice Chancellor of NLISU, Bengaluru is the Ex-officio
Secretary of the CLAT consortium. In January, 2020, CLAT consortium
opened registration for CLAT Examination 2020 fixing 31.03.2020 as
initial deadline for registration which was subsequently extended to
10.07.2020. The petitioners submitted the registration forms within the
prescribed period. However, due to the outbreak of Corona virus
(Covid-19) Pandemic, the CLAT 2020 was not conducted on the
scheduled date and was shifted from time to time and presently the
said examination is scheduled to be held on 28.09.2020. In the
meantime, on 03.09.2020 the NLSIU, Bengaluru came up with a notice
informing inter alia that the NLSIU Bengaluru would be conducting a
separate examination on 12.09.2020 for admission to its five years B.A.
LL.B. (Hons) degree programme. Hence, the present writ petition.
4.

Mr. Shubham Gautam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the act of NLSIU Bengaluru in declaring a

 3

separate examination for admission to its Five Years B.A. LL.B. (Hons)
degree programme for the session 2020-21 is illegal and arbitrary, as
the same has been issued in violation of Clause 15.7 of the Bye Laws
of the Consortium of National Law Universities. It is submitted that the
Vice Chancellor of the NALSAR, Hyderabad has expressed his dismay
that while NLSIU, Bengaluru chooses to continue in the consortium,
yet conducts its own admission test which is not permissible under the
Bye Laws of the consortium. It is also submitted that by the arbitrary
action of the NLSIU Bengaluru, the right of the petitioners to have an
examination in just and fair manner has been violated. Moreover, the
action of NLSIU, Bengaluru is violative of the principle of promissory
estoppel, since it has withdrawn from CLAT, 2020 after submission of
the registration forms by the students intending to appear for CLAT.
The declaration of new date of examination by NLSIU, Bengaluru,
about 10 days before the declared date of examination is illegal,
arbitrary and whimsical. It is also submitted that the action of the
NLSIU, Bengaluru is against the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court
to get the examination conducted in fair and just manner.
5.

Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 4, submits that this court is empowered to exercise its
writ jurisdiction, keeping in view the mandate of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India.

6.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of IndiaRespondent No.2 informs the court that a writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.1030 of 2020 raising similar issue has been filed in the Supreme
Court and another writ petition is also pending in the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh.

7.

Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf
of NLSIU Bengaluru submits that since the writ petitions with similar
grievance have been filed in the Supreme Court as well as in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, it would not be appropriate for this Court to
entertain the present matter in view of the principle of forum nonconvenience. The learned Senior Counsel, while justifying the
impugned notice dated 03.09.2020, submits that since the examination
of CLAT 2020 has repeatedly been postponed due to the outbreak of
Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, NLSIU Bengaluru has been put to a
uniquely disadvantageous position as it follows a “trimester system”

 4

and if the admission is not completed before the end of September
2020, it will inevitably result in a Zero year with no admission. It is also
submitted that under the said circumstance the NLSIU Bengaluru has
been compelled to conduct a separate admission process for the said
examination for the academic year 2020-21. It is further submitted
that before issuing notice dated 03.09.2020, the matter was
considered at length in the Faculty Meeting of the University and only
when it was found that CLAT 2020 has been postponed from 7th to
28th September 2020, the faculty unanimously decided to conduct a
common entrance online test at the earliest and with the lowest
possible application fee. It is also submitted that NLSIU Bengaluru is
committed to ensure that NLAT 2020 must be conducted in an
accessible and student friendly manner at various centres across India
managed by M/s Testpan Pvt. Ltd., a national centre based testing
company providing equipment and space for those students who are
unable to meet NLAT 2020 test requirements. It is further submitted
that more than 30,000 students have already registered for NLAT 2020
and only handful of students are raising grievances which would
indicate that the decision of the respondent no.1 is in interest of the
students at large.
8.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record. The petitioners are residing within the territory of
the State of Jharkhand from where they have registered themselves
for CLAT 2020 to be conducted by the CLAT consortium. They feel
aggrieved with the notice dated 03.09.2020 inviting applications for
admission to the five-year integrated B.A. LL.B. (Hons) programme
dated 03.09.2020 whereby it was resolved by NLSIU, Bengaluru that
separate examination process for B.A, LL.B. would be conducted for
the academic session 2020-21.

9.

The examination of National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) 2020 is
scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. on 12.09.2020 and the students
from all over the country will appear in the said examination and thus
the primary question before this court is as to whether in the present
facts and situation, would it be appropriate for this court, keeping in
view the future prospects of thousands of students, to pass any
direction which may have ramifications all over the country.

 5

10. In the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India &

Others, reported in 1990 Supp SCC 440, the Hon ble Supreme
Court has held as under:
113. Before we conclude, we must note that good deal of
argument was adduced that these applications in different
High Courts in civil suits were not genuine and properly
motivated, but were mala fide. Even though these might not
have been to feed fat an innocent object, it was apparent that
it was to feed fat a grudge in respect of a competitive project
by a competitor. Anyway, in the view we have taken, it is not
necessary to decide the bona fides or mala fides of the
applicants. Shri Nariman, when he moved the application
initially, had suggested that we should lay down certain norms
as to how the courts in different parts of the country should
grant injunction or entertain applications affecting an all-India
issue or having ramifications all over the country. Except that
before the courts grant any injunction, they should have
regard to the principles of comity of courts in a federal
structure and have regard to self-restraint and circumspection,
we do not at this stage lay down any more definite norms. We
may also perhaps add that it may be impossible to lay down
hard and fast rules of general application because of the
diverse situations which give rise to problems of this nature.
Each case has its own special facts and complications and it
will be a disadvantage, rather than an advantage, to attempt
and apply any stereotyped formula to all cases. Perhaps in this
sphere, the High Courts themselves might be able to introduce
a certain amount of discipline having regard to the principles
of comity of courts administering the same general laws
applicable all over the country in respect of granting interim
orders which will have repercussion or effect beyond the
jurisdiction of the particular courts. Such an exercise will be
useful contribution in evolving good conventions in the federal
j dicia
e .

11. In the case of Chhavi Mehrotra Vs. Director General, Health

Services, reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 434, the Hon ble
Supreme Court has held as under: 1. ----- It is a clear case where the High Court ought not to
have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter
was clearly seized of by this Court in a petition under Article
32. The petitioner was eonomine a party to the proceedings
before this Court. It is an unhappy situation that the learned
Judge of the High Court permitted himself to issue certain
directions which, if implemented, would detract from the
plenitude of the orders of this Court. The learned Single
Judge's perception of justice of the matter might have been
different and the abstinence that the observance of judicial
propriety, counsels might be unsatisfactory; but judicial
discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is
imperative that such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should
strictly be avoided. We restrain ourselves from saying anything
e.

 6

12. In a recent judgement, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India & Ors. Vs. R. Thiyagarajan, reported in 2020
SCC Online SC 349, has held as under: 18. We also are of the view that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court exercise its
jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It
has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the
present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the
present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court
but some other High Court may or may not have taken different
view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such
order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High
Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has
ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted
similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of
exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In
any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire
country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to
the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High
Court. The High Court may be justified in passing such an order
when it only affects the employees of the State falling within
its jurisdiction but, in our opinion, it could not have passed
such an order in the case of employees where pan India
e e c
i
d be i
ed.

13. It may thus be construed that there cannot be a straitjacket formula
to deal with the cases affecting an all-India issue or having
ramifications all over the country. The High Courts themselves should
introduce a certain amount of discipline having regard to the principles
of comity of courts administering the same general laws applicable all
over the country in respect of granting interim orders which will have
repercussion or effect beyond the jurisdiction of the particular courts.
Such an exercise will be useful contribution in evolving good
conventions in the federal judicial system. It is not justified for a High
Court to pass any order which has pan India repercussions. The reason
behind it is that when the same issue is raised in different High Courts,
there might be a possibility of different views coming up which would
create an impossible situation for the implementing agency to comply
all the orders.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to convince this Court
that in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the power
conferred to the High Courts by virtue of clause (1) to issue directions,
orders or writs to any government, authority or person, may also be
exercised by any High Court in relation to the territories within which
the cause of action, wholly or in part arises, notwithstanding that the
seat of such government or authority or the residence of such person

 7

is not within those territories. Since the petitioners have filled up the
forms from the State of Jharkhand and are residing within its territory,
this court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter and to pass
appropriate direction on the respondents.
15. In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India &

Another, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, the Hon ble Supreme
Court has held that even if a small part of cause of action arises within
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not
be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court
to decide the matter on merit. The Court, in appropriate cases, may
refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine
of forum convenience.
16. In the present case, most of the grounds taken by the petitioners in
challenging the impugned notice dated 03.09.2020 issued by NLSIU,
Bengaluru to conduct NLAT, 2020 are substantially based on the terms
and conditions of the byelaws agreed amongst all the participating
NLUs forming the CLAT Consortium, the secretariat of which is located
at Bengaluru itself. The petitioners-students have also based their
contentions on the alleged violation of different terms and conditions
of the byelaws by NLSIU Bengaluru which is also located in the State
of Karnataka. In my view, it primarily seems to be an inter se dispute
between CLAT consortium and NLSIU Bengaluru and this court has no
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.
17. Moreover, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that a writ
petition has also been filed before the Hon ble Supreme Court by a
former Vice-Chancellor of NLSIU, Bengaluru, challenging the decision
of NLSIU, Bengaluru to conduct a separate Law Entrance Examination
i.e. NLAT, 2020, which is still pending.
18. Otherwise also, on the query of this court put to the learned counsel
for petitioners, particularly on the point as to what prejudice has been
caused to the petitioners by the action of the respondent no.1 in
conducting NLAT, 2020, it has been submitted that one of the technical
requirements to appear in the said examination by maintaining the
minimum bandwidth speed of 1 MBPS is arbitrary and unreasonable.
In response to that, it has been submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent no.1 that NLSIU, Bengaluru has now
reduced required internet bandwidth to 512 kbps which can easily be

 8

accessed by any of the candidates. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has also contended that no test centre has been provided
in the State of Jharkhand, however, the said contention has been
refuted by Mr. Poovayya, submitting that a centre has already been
provided in Dhanbad. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also
contended that the pattern of the examination has been changed by
the respondent no.1, which may cause prejudice to the interest of the
petitioners. Refuting the said contention, Mr. Poovayya has submitted
that the pattern of the examination has not been changed, rather the
number of questions has been reduced and the purpose behind it is
not to test the students strictly on the aptitude of the law but on
general aptitude. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further
argued that on one hand the students has been given option to appear
at test centres across India and on the other hand, it has been provided
in the notification that the respondent no.1 will not be responsible for
technical faults, internet connection etc., which is, in fact, an arbitrary
and unreasonable decision.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners has put reliance on para 15 of
the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of

Disha Panchal & Others Vs. Union of India, through the
Secretary & Others, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 278. It was
alleged in the said case that the petitioners faced difficulties in
appearing CLAT examination due to mismanagement of the authorities
conducting the examination. Their Lordships found substance in the
claim of the petitioners and held as under: 15. We have dealt with the matter only from the standpoint
of how best to compensate the candidates who lost valuable
time while undergoing test. We must record that we are not at
all satisfied with the way the examination was conducted. The
body which was given the task of conducting the examination
was duty-bound to ensure facilities of uninterrupted UPS and
generator facility. The record indicates complete inadequacy
on that point. We therefore direct the Union of India in the
Ministry of Human Resources and Development to appoint a
committee to look into the matter and take appropriate
remedial measures including penal action, if any, against the
body which was entrusted with the task. The committee so
constituted shall also look into the aspect of having completely
satisfactory arrangements in future so that no such instances
are repeated or reoccur in coming years. We must also observe
that the idea of entrusting the task of monitoring the conduct
of entire examination to different Law Universities every year
also needs to be revisited. The agreement with the
examination conducting body, which was placed on record
indicates that as against the amount made over to such
examination conducting body, the fees charged from the

 9

candidates is far in excess. The committee shall bestow
consideration to all these aspects after having inputs from
such sources as it may deem appropriate including the Bar
Council of India and make a detailed report to this Court within
h ee
h f
da .

20. The facts and circumstance of the present case is entirely different. In
the present case, the examination is yet to be conducted. This Court
is of the view that such a hypothetical argument cannot be taken into
consideration at this stage.
21. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, I am of the
considered view that since the present matter has pan India
ramifications and petitioners have failed to make out a strong ground
so as to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court which
is otherwise plenary in nature, it would not be appropriate for this
Court to interfere with the notice dated 03.09.2020 issued by NLSIU,
Bengaluru.
22. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed

Sanjay/AFR

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

OF 2020

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
BETWEEN
Position of parties
In High
Court

In this
Court

1. Xenia Dhar
Aged about 18 years old
D/o Rana Dhar
R/o D 104, Triveni Apartments,
Airport Road, Hinu, Ranchi,
Jharkhand – 834002

Petitioner
No. 1

Petitioner
No. 1

2. Palak Sharma
Aged about 19 years old
D/o Sanjay Sharma
R/o 301/B, Shri Baijnath
Residency,
Kusum
Vihar,
Morabadi, Ranchi, Jharkhand
– 834009

Petitioner
No. 2

Petitioner
No. 2

3. Gaurav Mitra
Aged about 22 years old
S/o Ravi Kumar Mirta,
R/o Kazi Chowk, Near Birsa,
Agricultural University College
Gate, Opposite Anita Girls
Hostel
Kanke,
Ranchi,
Jharkhand – 834006

Petitioner
No. 3

Petitioner
No. 3

 4. Vishal Raj Singh
Aged about 19 years old
S/o Vijay DIngh
R/o QR No. B 1333, Sector 2,
HEC
Colony,
Ranchi,
Jharkahnd – 834004

Petitioner
No. 4

Petitioner
No. 4

5. Aditya Raj
Aged about 18 years old
S/o Brajesh umar Singh,
R/o 1/C Block A, Ramdeo
Vihar Opposite Ashok Nagar,
gate No. 4, Ranchi, Jharkhand
– 834002

Petitioner
No. 5

Petitioner
No. 5

AND
1.

The National Law School Of India Respondent Respondent
University, through its Registrar,
No. 1
No.1
Nagarbhavi,
P.S.
Mallathahalli,
Bangalore - 560072

2.

The Union of India through the Respondent Respondent
Secretary, Ministry of Education,
No.2
No.2
Shastri Bhawan, Baroda House,
New Delhi - 110001

3.

The Bar Council of India, through Respondent
the Chairman, 21, Rouse Avenue,
No. 3
Institutional
Area,
Near
Bal
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110002

Respondent
No. 3

4.

The Consortium of National Law Respondent
Universities,
Nagarbhavi,
P.S.
No. 4
Mallathalli, Bangalore - 560072

Respondent
No. 4

 To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PRAYER OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVEMENTIONED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :
1. The Petitioner has been constrained to file the present
Special Leave Petition being aggrieved by the impugned
Judgement and Final Order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 2454 of 2020 whereby the Hon’ble High Court
erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the
Petitioners seeking quashing of notice dated 03.09.2020
issued by the National Law School of India University,
Benguluru, declaring that a separate examination for
admission to its Five Tears B.A. LL.B (hons.) degree
programme will be held on 12.09.2020.

 1A.

That a letters patent appeal is currently pending before the
Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi against the
impugned Final Judgement and Order.

1. QUESTIONS OF LAW:-

The following questions of law arise for consideration by this
Hon’ble Court –
i.

Whether the Hon’ble High Court whilst dismissing the
Writ Petition failed to consider that under Article 226
(2) of the Constitution of India, the power conferred to
the High Courts by virtue of clause (1) to issue
directions,

order,

or

writs

to

any

government,

authority or person, may also be exercised by any High
Court in relation to the territories within which the
cause

of

action,

wholly

or

in

part

arises,

notwithstanding that the seat of such government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within
those territories?

 ii.

Whether the Hon’ble High Court whilst dismissing the
Writ Petition failed to consider that since the
petitioners have filled up their forms in the State of
Jharkhand and are residing within its territory, the
Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand had territorial
jurisdiction to hear the matter on merits and to pass
appropriate direction?

iii.

Whether the Hon’ble High Court whilst dismissing the
Writ Petition failed to consider that the technical
requirement for appearing in the NLAT examination is
arbitrary and unreasonable considering, unlike CLAT,
there are lesser NLAT test centers which could be
accessed by NLAT aspirants who do not have access to
smartphones, or computers?

iv.

Whether the Hon’ble High Court whilst dismissing the
Writ Petition failed to consider that conducting such
an exam on a large scale in such a short span of time
may lead to deficiencies and mismanagement more so
in light of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Disha

 Panchal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in
(2018) 17 SCC 278?

3.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):

That the Petitioner states that no other or similar Petition
seeking Special Leave to Appeal has been filed by them
against the impugned final judgment and order of the
Hon’ble High Court.

4.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

That the Annexures P 1 to P 13 produced alongwith the
present Special Leave Petition are true copies of their
respective originals and they form part of the pleadings and
the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against
whose Order leave to appeal is sought for in the present
Special Leave Petition.

 5. GROUNDS
The Petitioner is seeking Special Leave to Appeal against the
impugned Judgment and Final Order dated 11.09.2020 on
the following amongst other Grounds which are taken
without prejudice to one another–

A. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
the matter on merits while erroneously dismissing the
Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners;

B. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court ought to have
appreciated that the Petitioners having filled up their
forms in the State of Jharkhand and are residing
within its territory, the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand had territorial jurisdiction to hear the
matter on merits and to pass appropriate directions;

C. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate
the nature of direction sought by the Petitioner could
have been issued by the Hon’ble High Court by virtue

 of the power conferred to it under Article 226 of the
Constitutions of India;

D. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that there is no rational behind the introduction of a
new mode and method of examination at such short
notice, as aspirants with lesser access to technology
will be severely and prejudicially affected;

E. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate
that submissions of the Petitioner that the technical
specifications required for writing the exams have
caused extreme prejudiced to the aspirants who do not
have access to smartphones or computers, as unlike
CLAT which had 5 test centres in Jharkhand, NLAT
had only 2 test centers in Jharkhand. It may be
pertinent to note that at the time of filing of the Writ
Petition, NLAT did not have a single test centre in
Jharkhand. The constant change in the rules and
regulations is egregious and poorly managed causing
confusion and anxiety amongst the students;

 F. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court ought to have
appreciated that conducting such an exam on a large
scale in such a short span of time may lead to
deficiencies and mismanagement more so in light of
the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Disha Panchal
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2018) 17
SCC 278;

G. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that NLSIU did not apply its mind while addressing the
concerns of a ‘Zero Year’ internally and has instead
devised an arbitrary mode of conducting entrance
examination which raises more concerns as to the
question of transparency and fairness as they are selfproctoring the examination;

H. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that the conduct of test for fear of ‘Zero year’ is
disproportional and arbitrary, as NLSIU could have

 reduced its course syllabus by 30% to make up for the
loss of time due to COVID – 19 this year. Alternatively,
there could have been reduction in subjects, instead
of such drastic disproportional measures. Further, the
concerns of a ‘Zero Year’ cannot be resolved through a
completely arbitrary and capricious home proctored
entrance examination which is not only exclusionary
by design but also completely mala fide in nature;

I. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that

the Notification for Admissions gives NLSIU

unilateral right to alter, modify, or cancel any
component or stage of the selection process without
prior notice, which further adds to the uncertainty of
the examination and is clearly arbitrary and open to
abuse;

J. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that

NLSIU has tried to usurp the powers and

functions of the CLAT consortium in an arbitrary

 manner by providing that the decision of the NLSIU on
any student’s eligibility, candidature, shortlisting, and
selection shall be final and not subject to any appeals
or challenges by or on behalf of any students.

K. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court ought to have
appreciated that non conduct of examination in the
months of July and August are solely attributable to
the Pandemic as there are serious concerns about the
health of the students. Further, due to the lockdowns
in West Bengal and Bihar, the exam was postponed to
late September;

L. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that the unilateral withdrawal by NLSIU from CLAT
violates the rights of the Petitioners to have an
examination in a just and fair manner, and after
having submitted the registration forms for CLAT by
the students, the said act is violative of principle of
promissory estoppel;

 M. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that the declaration of a new examination date and a
new pattern of examination by NLSIU mere 10 days
prior to the date of examination is illegal, arbitrary,
and unreasonable;

N. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that the impugned notification is violative of the Bye –
Laws of the Consortium, which severely affects the
position held by NLSIU in the CLAT consortium. The
said act of NLSIU is in violation of the legitimate and
reasonable

expectations

of

the

candidates

and

stakeholders of legal education;

O. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that all the NLUs forming a part of the consortium are
facing similar problems due to the pandemic, and have
decided to take appropriate measures, in consultation
with each other. NLSIU, going out own its own
unilaterally has severely jeopardized its standing

 within the consortium and does not merit any special
consideration;

P. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court ought to have
allowed the Petitioner’s plea in the interest of justice.

Q. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider
that NLSIU is also in violation of the various directions
of this Hon’ble Court and the undertakings taken
before this Hon’ble pursuant to which a single
examination, being CLAT, is now being conducted by
the Consortium;

6.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

i.

That NLSIU still being a part of the consortium could not
have opted to conduct a separate examination called NLAT
which is ex facie contrary to the Memorandum of
Understanding entered into between the Universities and
the Bye – Laws of the Consortium. It is highly arbitrary for

 NLSIU to proceed for a home – proctored online admission
test;

ii.

That the non – conduct of the examination in the months of
July – August 2020 are solely attributable to the COVID –
19 Pandemic due to serious health concerns of the
students, further it would have been practically impossible
for

candidates

from

rural

places

to

attend

such

examinations which are usually conducted in the cities;

i.

That the Petitioners have a very good prima facie case on
merits and the balance of convenience is in its favour.
Irreparable harm and injury will be caused to the Petitioners
in case the relief sought for is not granted.

7.

MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may
be pleased to:

 a)

Grant Special Leave to appeal against the Impugned
Judgment and Final Order dated 11.09.2020 passed
by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 2454 of 2020;

b)

Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

8.

PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may
be pleased to pass the following Order pending the hearing
and final disposal of the present Special Leave Petition:

a)

Grant ex party stay of admissions to the National Law
School of India University on the basis of NLAT 2020
result until final disposal of the present Special Leave
Petition;

 b)

Pass ad-interim ex-parte relief in terms of prayer a)
above;

c)

Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OR KINDNESS THE PETITIONER
SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

FILED BY:

(KUSH CHATURVEDI)
Advocate for the Petitioner
New Delhi
Filed on: 12.09.2020