Courtroom number thirty-one of the Bombay High Court was filled with a number of young students today. And all of them had one thing in common: they had appeared in the common entrance test for law conducted by the state of Maharashtra this year. It was this very test that was being challenged in the High Court..Following arguments spread over several days, the division bench of Justices SC Dharmadhikari and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi began dictating the order at noon. After recording the submissions made by the petitioner’s lawyer Pradnya Talekar and state’s counsel Shreehari Aney, the operative part of the order was read at around 4 pm..The bench firstly disposed off the state’s contention on the petitioner’s locus stating.“It is open for her (petitioner) to impugne legality and validity of this exam. We do not find any lack of bona fides.”.On the question of the Union overriding or overruling a state legislation, the judges relied on the Supreme Court’s judgement in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh which says.“When it comes to co-ordination and laying down of standards in the higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, power rests with the Union/Parliament to the exclusion of the State Legislatures. However, other facets of education, including technical and medical education, as well as governance of universities is concerned, even State Legislatures are given power by virtue of Entry 25.”.On the Act of 2015 not being the appropriate legislation to bring in this exam under, the bench recorded that,.“State was empowered by the resolutions to conduct the process of admissions which are to be regulated by a competent authority under the said act.”.The bench also observed that rules under which this exam will be conducted can be laid down before the legislature in the ensuing monsoon session. On Talekar’s contention that syllabus for the exam was not notified before time Dharmadhikari J observed that,.“Merely because the syllabus was not notified does not mean the entire exercise undertaken by the state is illegal.”.“The manner in which the state proceeded with the exam may have left a lot to desire however we cannot declare the Act of 2015 and the government resolution as illegal.”.Although the court had earlier said that if fundamental rights of the students were found to be violated, the CET would be void ab initio, Dharmadhikari J finally stated.“We see no merit in the contentions made by the petitioner and hereby dismiss the petition.”.Also recording the need for state to consult Bar Council of India in such a process, the judge said that,.“There is no need for the state to have sidetracked [the] BCI. Under parliamentary statute it (BCI) is very much concerned with legal education. Subject, syllabus these things have to be finalised by consulting BCI or Bar Council of the state. Their invovement will only improve the standards (of the exam).”.Comments to this post have been disabled. You can view more information on the CET admission process here.