Karnataka High Court seeks response from NLSIU, BCI on plea by student at risk of losing a year

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday sought the response of National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru on a petition challenging the validity of a University regulation and a revised class-timing scheme..Justice Ashok S Kinagi today sought the NLSIU's and BCI's responses in the matter. The matter has been listed for further hearing next week. The Court, however, rejected the petitioner's interim application seeking urgent interim relief..The petition has been filed by an NLSIU student. He has primarily urged the Court to quash NLSIU's decision to withhold the results of a project he submitted after it was subjected to a Turnitin plagiarism check. He has contended that the project's result was withheld without notice, or a hearing or a reasoned order. The plea has also sought a directive for NLSIU to furnish to the petitioner the Turnitin similarity report. Further, the student has requested a re-evaluation by an independent examiner and an opportunity to be heard.He has also urged the Court to issue directions to the NLSIU so that he does not lose an academic year on the basis of the challenged project evaluation or because he did not satisfy Regulation 8.1(a) of NLSIU's Academic and Examination Regulations, 2022. Regulation 8.1(a) prescribes the minimum CGPA that a student has to have at the end of each academic year to pass that year. Notably, the petition also challenges the validity of the said regulation itself. Moreover, the plea contends that certain revised class timings introduced by NLSIU fall short of the instructional hours prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008.The plea seeks a declaration that Regulation 8.1(a), along with the NLSIU's revised class-timing scheme reducing each class to 50 minutes and providing only around 51 hours of instruction for each four-credit subject, is arbitrary, violates the BCI Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.The student has also urged the Court to issue directions so that he is provisionally promoted to the next academic year, adding that such relief can be made subject to the final outcome of his petition. .During today's hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the dispute arose after the student's assignment was subjected to a similarity-index check, resulting in the withholding of the subject result. The counsel argued that the petitioner is not only challenging the regulations but also seeking permission to participate in an elective selection process for the upcoming semester, failing which he stands to lose an academic year."The student has submitted his assignment...We are challenging the regulation. He may be allowed to go for the electives. Otherwise, his year and the semester will get affected," counsel submitted.The petitioner's counsel added that an application for an urgent consideration of the matter was submitted because the University had refused to permit the petitioner to choose electives."If he is not allowed, he will lose out a year. They have not even issued any show-cause notice. They have simply withheld the result of the subject. That is why we have approached this Court urgently," counsel submitted.