No reason for NLSIU to declare zero year, home-based online test could not have ensured transparency: The Supreme Court's NLAT verdict

Putting to bed concerns surrounding this year’s admissions to India’s premier law school, the Supreme Court today annulled the conduct of the National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT 2020)..While doing so, the Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah held that admissions to National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Bangalore will be done through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT 2020)..The Court has also urged the reinstatement of NLSIU to the Secretariat of the Consortium of National Law Universities, which had opposed the University’s move to conduct its separate exam..In its 107-page judgment, the Bench framed five questions to arrive at its decision. Here is why the Court decided to quash the conduct of NLAT 2020..The lead petitioner in the case before the Supreme Court was RK Agrawal, who claimed to the be parent of a student appearing for law entrance exams this year. The co-petitioner was former NLSIU Vice-Chancellor Prof Venkata Rao, who was one of the founding members of the NLU Consortium..On the preliminary issue of locus of the petitioners, the Court noted that even though Agrawal did not provide details of his ward, considering the credentials of Prof Rao, the writ petition is fully maintainable. The Court held,“A person, who has worked as Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.1 and was also member of Consortium, which is entrusted to conduct CLAT, he is fully competent to espouse the cause of education by means of the writ petition.”.The petitioners has questioned the move of NLSIU’s Executive Council to take a decision to hold a separate entrance exam this year, sans the approval of the University’s Academic Council..The Court held that the Executive Council can very well exercise its power under Section 10 of the NLSIU Act to administer, manage and control the affairs of the school. However, on going through various other provisions of the Act, the Court came to the conclusion that the Academic Council was required to sign off on such a decision.“The recommendation of Academic Council was necessary to be obtained for holding a separate entry test namely NLAT especially when respondent No.1 was proposing to hold the above test instead of admitting the students by CLAT from which common law admission test, admission in LL.B. course was being done for last more than a decade. When the respondent No.1 wanted to conduct NLAT as online home proctored test of 45 minutes containing 40 questions which mode and manner was different from earlier prescriptions, the recommendations of Academic Council were must.”.Thus, the Court held that the notification announcing the move to conduct NLAT could not have been issued without obtaining the Academic Council’s recommendation..The Bench held that though the NLU Consortium’s bye-laws were non-statutory in nature, they were framed with the aim and object of being followed by its members. It also went into the history of the formation of the Consortium, which was effected by petitions filed before the Court, to note,“Further the statutes under which National Law Universities have been established cast public duties on these NLUs to function in a fair, reasonable and transparent manner. These institutions of higher learning are looked by society and students with respect and great Trust. All NLUs have to conduct themselves in a manner which fulfills the cause of education and maintain the trust reposed on them.”.One of the main justifications for NLSIU to conduct the NLAT was the apprehension that a ‘zero-year’ would be effected if admissions were not made immediately. However, the Court refused to accept this reasoning, noting that the academic calendars of every university stood disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Stating that none of the universities have declared this year as a ‘zero year’, the Court observed,.“The respondent No.1 University could have very well found out ways and means to start the academic Under-Graduate Law course even if it starts in mid of October 2020 after conduct of the CLAT on 28.09.2020.”Supreme Court.It was further held,“We are not persuaded to accept the submission that “Doctrine of Necessity” was applicable in the fact situation of the ongoing pandemic. As noted above, UGC in its guidelines dated 29.04.2020 has already asked all the Universities to modify their academic calendar for the academic year 2020-21. The UGC being the body to maintain standard of education in the entire country and having contemplated for suitable amending the academic year, “Doctrine of Necessity” does not arise. We thus conclude that being members of the Consortium respondent No.1 ought not to have proceeded with holding a separate test namely “NLAT” nor the academic year 2020-21 be required to be declared as “zero-year” even if the course starts in the mid of October, 2020.”.While answering this question in the affirmative, the Court highlighted that NLSIU Vice-Chancellor Prof Sudhir Krishnaswamy, in his capacity as Secretary-Treasurer of the NLU Consortium, had earlier filed an affidavit stating that CLAT 2020 could not be held online. The judgment reads,.“The respondent No.2 had categorically taken the stand on behalf of the CLAT that online test at home with technological measures cannot ensure transparency and the test will be completely compromised and may even be manipulated by participants and coaching centres. There was no reason for change of mind by respondent No.2 within a week…when home based online test could not have been permitted for CLAT-2020, the same test can also not be permitted for NLAT-2020.”Supreme Court.[Exclusive]: "We are not the only university that feels this way", NLSIU Vice-Chancellor Prof Sudhir Krishnaswamy on NLAT move.The Court thus held,“We thus find substance in the submissions of the petitioner that permitting of home based online test could not have ensured transparency, fairness and integrity of the examination especially when the test was to be conducted for entrance into a premier Law University of the country.”.The Court took into consideration the difficulties expressed by students in appearing for NLAT, given the short notice of the notification and the technical requirements for the exam. The stark difference in registrations for NLAT, compared to the number of students scheduled to appear for CLAT was also taken note of. The Court stated,“About 69,000 students have registered for CLAT-2020. 60 percent of 69,000 comes to 41,400. The registration into NLAT being only 24,603 out of which only 23,225 could appear makes it clear that a large number of students who could have wanted to apply for admission in respondent No.1 University could not even apply due to shortage of time and technical requirement insisted by respondent No.1 University. The above figures fully support the submissions of the petitioner that a large section of the students especially belonging to marginalised sections of the society were denied the opportunity to appear in the examination.”.Technical Requirements to write the NLAT Exam 2020 for NLSIU admissions released .Thus, the Court came to the conclusion that NLAT was not a test that was able to maintain transparency and integrity, and was violative of the rights of students under Article 14 of the Constitution of India..As reported earlier, several students highlighted the potential of mass cheating when NLAT was first held on September 12, and again when the re-test took place two days later. The question paper was leaked midway through the latter exam, raising questions surrounding the integrity of the process. However, the Bench did not see it fit to delve into whether the exam should be set aside on account of the alleged malpractices that took place. It held,“…we are of the view that for the present case, it is not necessary for this court to enter into various materials referred to by the petitioners and the reports and to decide as to whether malpractices were actually adopted in the examination or not. Respondent No.1 being premier University, we have no doubt that it must have taken all necessary precautions to avoid any malpractices and cheating in the examination…We need not express any opinion in this proceeding under Article 32 with regard to the aspect of malpractices in the test conducted on 12.09.2020 and 14.09.2020 which is essentially a matter of scrutiny of facts and evidence.”.On these grounds, among others, the Court set aside the admission notification announcing the holding of NLAT and directed NLSIU to admit students this year on the basis of CLAT. The Court has also directed for the reinstatement of NLSIU into the NLU Consortium..[Read the judgment]