Supreme Court quashes NLSIU’s separate entrance test, mandates CLAT for admissions: Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla vs. NLSIU (2020) INSC 476

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 September 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 476
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., and M.R. Shah, J. (authored by Ashok Bhushan, J.)

Can a premier law university conduct its own entrance exam, bypassing the established national-level test? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru. This judgment clarifies the importance of following established procedures and maintaining transparency in the admission process for higher education institutions.

The core issue was whether NLSIU could conduct a separate entrance exam, the National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT), instead of admitting students through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), a standardized test used by most National Law Universities in India. This case highlights the conflict between a university’s desire for autonomy and the need for a fair and consistent admission process for all aspiring law students.

Case Background

NLSIU was established in 1986 as a premier law university through a joint effort by the Supreme Court of India, the Bar Council of India, and the Karnataka Bar Council. Over time, several other National Law Universities (NLUs) were established across the country. Initially, each NLU conducted its own entrance exam. However, to streamline the admission process and reduce the burden on students, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court in 2006, seeking a centralized admission process.

Following this, the National Law Universities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2007 to conduct a common admission test, the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). The CLAT was successfully conducted from 2008 onwards. In 2019, the Consortium of National Law Universities was formed as a registered society to administer the CLAT.

In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CLAT exam was postponed multiple times. NLSIU, concerned about a potential “zero year,” decided to conduct its own entrance exam, the NLAT, for the 2020-21 academic year. This decision led to the filing of the present writ petition challenging the legality of NLSIU’s actions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The writ petition was initially filed in the Supreme Court of India. Simultaneously, a similar writ petition was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by five students challenging NLSIU’s decision to conduct a separate entrance exam. The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition. The students then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was tagged with the original writ petition.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the National Law School of India Act, 1986, which established NLSIU. Key provisions include:

• Section 10: This section establishes the Executive Council as the chief executive body of the School, responsible for the administration, management, and control of the School.
• Section 11: This section establishes the Academic Council as the academic body of the School, responsible for maintaining standards of instruction, education, and examination. It also has the right to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters.
• Section 13: This section empowers the Executive Council to frame regulations for the administration and management of the School. However, the second proviso states that the Executive Council cannot make regulations affecting the mode of enrolment or admission of students without the prior concurrence of the Academic Council. Specifically, “Provided further that except with the prior concurrence of the Academic Council, the Executive Council shall not make, amend or repeal any regulation affecting any or all of the following matters, namely: (g) mode of enrolment or admission of students;”
• Section 18: This section states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, and functions are as specified in the Schedule or as provided by the regulations.
• Clause 9 of the Schedule: This clause outlines the powers and functions of the Executive Council.
• Clause 14 of the Schedule: This clause outlines the powers and duties of the Academic Council, including the power to appoint committees for admission to the School. Specifically, “(7) to appoint committees for admission to the School;”

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• ✓ The NLSIU’s notification for a separate admission test (NLAT) violates the National Law School of India Act, 1986, as it was not approved by the Academic Council, which is the statutory authority for admissions.
• ✓ The Executive Council lacks the power to decide on the mode of admission without the Academic Council’s concurrence as per Section 13 of the National Law School of India Act, 1986.
• ✓ NLSIU, as a member of the Consortium of National Law Universities, is bound by its bye-laws to admit students through CLAT.
• ✓ The decision to conduct a separate test was not in the students’ interest, especially since CLAT was scheduled for September 28, 2020, and a large number of students had already registered for it.
• ✓ The online home-proctored NLAT lacked transparency, fairness, and integrity, and was not accessible to all students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds.
• ✓ The NLAT was conducted with a lack of transparency and fairness, with large-scale irregularities and malpractices reported, including a retest.
• ✓ The decision to conduct a separate test was not brought to the notice of the Consortium.

Respondents’ Arguments (NLSIU):

• ✓ The petitioners lack the locus standi to file the writ petition.
• ✓ NLSIU had to conduct a separate test to avoid a “zero year” due to delays in CLAT.
• ✓ The Executive Council has the power to administer and manage the school, which includes the right to admit students.
• ✓ The second proviso of Section 13 of the National Law School of India Act, 1986 does not apply as no regulations regarding admissions have been framed.
• ✓ The NLAT was conducted transparently, with precautions to prevent malpractice, including human and AI proctoring.
• ✓ The decision to postpone CLAT was not unanimous and the difficulty of NLSIU with trimesters was pointed out in the Executive Council meeting.
• ✓ The separate examination was only for the academic year 2020-21, and NLSIU would conduct admissions based on CLAT from the next year.

Respondents’ Arguments (Consortium):

• ✓ The Consortium was formed to conduct CLAT for the benefit of all its members and to fulfill a statutory purpose.
• ✓ The Consortium was kept in the dark about NLSIU’s decision to hold a separate entrance exam.
• ✓ The abrupt decision of NLSIU undermines the credibility of the Consortium.

SLP Petitioners’ Arguments:

• ✓ The applicants are students who registered for CLAT 2020 and were aggrieved by the separate test.
• ✓ The test conducted on 12 September 2020 was neither transparent nor fair.
• ✓ The reason for conducting a separate test is the alleged loss of 17 crores, which is not a relevant reason.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the petitioners have the locus to file the writ petition?
2. 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?
3. Whether the respondent No.1, being a founder member of the Consortium of National Law Universities, a registered society, is bound by its Bye-Laws and was obliged to admit the students for the integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme through CLAT 2020?
4. Whether the online home proctored examination as proposed by the 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?
5. Whether the NLAT held on 12.09.2020 with a retest on 14.09.2020 was marred by malpractices and deserves to be set aside?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481* was cited to establish that the right to admit students is part of the administration of an educational institution, but the court clarified that this right is subject to the statutory framework.
• PTC India Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 4 SCC 603* was distinguished by the court to show that the Executive Council’s power to administer and manage the school is separate from its regulation-making power, but the latter is subject to the Academic Council’s concurrence.
• V.T. Khanzode and Ors. Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Anr., (1982) 2 SCC 7* was distinguished by the court to show that the Executive Council can exercise its general power of administration, but this power is subject to the specific provisions of the Act regarding admissions.
• Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 120* was cited to show that norms of admissions directly impact the standards of education, reinforcing the Academic Council’s role in admissions.
• Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132* was cited to emphasize that when a statute prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body, thereby reinforcing the Academic Council’s role in admissions.
• Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society versus Registrar of Societies and others, (2000) 1 SCC 566* was cited to highlight that bye-laws of a society are binding on its members, which includes NLSIU.
• Christian Medical College Vellore Association versus Union of India and others, Transferred Case(Civil) No.98 of 2012* was cited to emphasize the importance of national interest in education, which supports the need for a common entrance test like CLAT.
• P.A. Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537* was cited to highlight the importance of common entrance tests for transparency and merit-based admissions, supporting the use of CLAT.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to uphold the statutory framework, ensure transparency and fairness in the admission process, and protect the interests of students. The Court emphasized the importance of the Academic Council’s role in admissions, the binding nature of the Consortium’s bye-laws, and the need for a transparent and fair examination process. The Court also highlighted the need for National Law Universities to act in a manner that fulfills the cause of education and maintains the trust reposed on them.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the law, particularly the provisions of the National Law School of India Act, 1986 and the bye-laws of the Consortium. While the factual aspects of the case, such as the timeline of events and the conduct of the NLAT, were considered, the legal framework played a more dominant role in the Court’s decision.

Final Order

The Supreme Court, in its final order, quashed the notification issued by NLSIU for conducting the separate entrance test (NLAT) for admissions to the five-year integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme for the academic year 2020-21. The Court mandated that NLSIU admit students through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2020.

Implications

For NLSIU:

• ✓ NLSIU had to abandon its separate entrance test (NLAT) and admit students through CLAT for the 2020-21 academic year.
• ✓ The judgment reaffirmed the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the need for prior approval from the Academic Council for admission-related decisions.
• ✓ It highlighted the need for NLSIU to work in coordination with the Consortium of National Law Universities.

For Other NLUs:

• ✓ The judgment reinforced the importance of the CLAT as the primary admission test for National Law Universities.
• ✓ It emphasized the binding nature of the Consortium’s bye-laws on all its members.
• ✓ It set a precedent that NLUs cannot unilaterally decide to conduct separate entrance exams without following due process and without the consent of the Consortium.

For Law Aspirants:

• ✓ The judgment provided clarity on the admission process for law programs, ensuring that students would be admitted through a fair and transparent process.
• ✓ It protected the interests of students who had already registered for CLAT, preventing them from having to appear for another entrance exam.
• ✓ It reinforced the importance of a common entrance test for all law aspirants.

Flowchart

Key Takeaways

This case underscores the importance of statutory compliance, transparency, and fairness in the admission process for higher education institutions. It highlights the significance of following established procedures and respecting the roles and responsibilities of different bodies within an educational institution. The judgment also emphasizes the need for National Law Universities to act in a manner that fulfills the cause of education and maintains the trust reposed on them.

• ✓ Statutory compliance is paramount for educational institutions.
• ✓ The Academic Council’s role in admissions is crucial.
• ✓ Transparency and fairness are essential in the admission process.
• ✓ Bye-laws of a consortium are binding on its members.
• ✓ Common entrance tests promote transparency and merit.
• ✓ Educational institutions must prioritize students’ interests.