Why the Bombay High Court did not strike down the Maharashtra Law CET [Read judgment]

On July 5 this year, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Common Entrance Test held for law courses in Maharashtra. A division bench of SC Dharmadhikari and Dr. Shalani Phansalkar-Joshi JJ had held that there were no grounds for interfering in the CET admission process..And now the judgement, dictated in open court, has been uploaded on the High Court’s website. In the ninety-four page judgement, the Bombay High Court has held that not only was the State competent to administer the entrance test, but that the said test could be held under the Maharashtra Unaided Private, Professional, Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admission and Fees) Act of 2015..“We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the contentions of Mr. Aney that this Government Resolution and traceable as it is to Article 162 of the Constitution of India complements the Act of 2015 insofar as the Common Admission Process and the Common Entrance Test. .Once the State was competent to enact a law, then, merely because it resorts to the power conferred by Article 162, the entire exercise cannot be said to be flawed..That process of admissions to such colleges not being covered by the Act of 2015, therefore, could have been brought within the purview of the competent authority by issuing the said Government Resolution. It is permissible by exercise of executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution.”.However, the court did take note of the manner in which the exam was conducted..“True it is that it would have been ideal if the Rules were made promptly and the requirement of the Statute fulfilled. True it is that even the Notifications ought to be promulgated and issued much prior to the examinations. True it is that even this Court would have been happy to note that the syllabus was made and notified to the students well in advance. However, merely because all this has not been done in the manner suggested by the petitioners does not mean that the exercise as undertaken by the State is unlawful or unconstitutional.”.The court also expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that the Bar Council of India, the national regulator for legal education, was not consulted in the entire process. As was also the case with the state bar council, and the Law and Judiciary department..“The involvement of the Bar Council may have improved the standards. Those teaching the theory of law and those actually practising it, if consulted, could have brought about a blend which the State ought to welcome. It is no use consulting some teachers and Principals and then finalising the process, that too hurriedly.”.The petitioner, Shalini Kotian, was represented by Pradnya Talekar while senior counsel, and former Advocate General, Shreehari Aney was representing the State, and the Director of Higher Education. The Bar Council of India was represented by Sachin B Deshmukh..To view reader-feedback on the CET, please read this post.