A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the legality of a unilateral decision taken by National Law School of India University, Bengaluru to conduct a separate entrance examination named National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) for admissions to its five-year integrated B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) programme for the academic year 2020–2021. The decision was taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing delay in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities.

The Supreme Court scrutinised whether the Executive Council of NLSIU could independently alter the established admission mechanism without securing the mandatory recommendation of the Academic Council under the National Law School of India Act, 1986. The Court undertook a detailed interpretation of Sections 10, 11, 13, and 18 of the Act read with the Schedule, particularly Clause 14, to determine the distribution of statutory powers between the Executive Council and the Academic Council.

The judgment further analysed the binding nature of the Bye-laws of the Consortium of National Law Universities, the doctrine of necessity invoked by NLSIU, and the constitutional implications under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the issuance of the NLAT notification without Academic Council recommendation was ultra vires, procedurally illegal, and violative of equality principles. Consequently, the NLAT notification and press release were quashed, and NLSIU was directed to admit students solely through CLAT 2020.

Keywords: Academic Council, Executive Council, CLAT, NLAT, Statutory Interpretation, Article 14, Doctrine of Necessity

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The controversy arose against the backdrop of the unprecedented disruption of academic schedules due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2020, the uniform entrance examination for National Law Universities, was repeatedly postponed, ultimately scheduled for 28 September 2020. NLSIU, citing its trimester system and apprehension of a “zero academic year”, resolved to conduct an independent entrance examination named NLAT.

The petition was instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by a parent of a CLAT aspirant and a former Vice-Chancellor of NLSIU. The challenge was directed against the admission notification dated 03.09.2020, alleging statutory violation of the National Law School of India Act, 1986 and breach of the binding obligations arising from NLSIU’s membership in the Consortium of National Law Universities.

The case raised substantial questions concerning statutory governance in autonomous educational institutions, separation of academic and executive powers, procedural fairness in admissions, and constitutional equality in access to education. The Court was also called upon to examine whether pandemic-induced exigencies justified deviation from established statutory and institutional norms.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

NLSIU was established under the National Law School of India Act, 1986 as the first National Law University in India. Over time, multiple NLUs were established, leading to the creation of a centralised admission system through CLAT following judicial intervention in Varun Bhagat v. Union of India.

In 2019, the Consortium of National Law Universities was formally registered, and NLSIU became a founding member. The Bye-laws mandated admissions to member universities strictly through CLAT. For the academic year 2020–2021, CLAT was initially scheduled for May 2020 but was postponed due to COVID-19.

Despite CLAT being rescheduled to 28 September 2020, NLSIU issued a notification on 03 September 2020 announcing NLAT, an online home-proctored examination. This decision was taken pursuant to resolutions of the Executive Council dated 12.08.2020 and 18.08.2020, without obtaining any recommendation from the Academic Council.

The NLAT was conducted on 12 September 2020 with a re-test on 14 September 2020. Allegations of exclusion, digital divide, lack of transparency, and procedural illegality were raised. The Supreme Court stayed declaration of results and admissions pending final adjudication.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to maintain the writ petition?
ii. Whether issuance of the NLAT notification without recommendation of the Academic Council violated the NLSIU Act, 1986?
iii. Whether NLSIU, as a founding member of the Consortium, was bound to admit students only through CLAT?
iv. Whether the doctrine of necessity justified departure from CLAT?
v. Whether NLAT violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the petitioners submitted that Sections 11, 13, and 18 of the NLSIU Act, 1986 unequivocally vest control over admissions with the Academic Council. The Executive Council could not bypass statutory safeguards by invoking administrative powers.

It was argued that the Consortium Bye-laws, though contractual, were binding and rooted in public interest. NLAT diluted merit, excluded marginalised students due to technological constraints, and breached Article 14. The doctrine of necessity was inapplicable as UGC guidelines permitted calendar modification.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that the Executive Council, being the chief executive authority under Section 10, possessed inherent power over admissions. The absence of framed regulations under Section 13 rendered Academic Council concurrence unnecessary.

It was further argued that NLAT was transparent, affordable, and technologically safeguarded, and that the academic exigency justified exceptional measures to prevent a zero year.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court rejected objections on locus standi, recognising the petitioners’ standing. On merits, the Court conducted an exhaustive statutory interpretation and held that Academic Council recommendation was mandatory for altering admission modes.

Relying on Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. and Marathwada University v. Seshrao Chavan, the Court reaffirmed that standards of education include admissions. The Court found NLAT procedurally illegal, inconsistent with Consortium obligations, and constitutionally infirm under Article 14.

The NLAT notification and press release were quashed. NLSIU was directed to complete admissions based on CLAT 2020 results.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The power to regulate admissions is an academic function statutorily vested in the Academic Council under the NLSIU Act, 1986. Executive Council resolutions without Academic Council recommendation are ultra vires. Membership obligations under Consortium Bye-laws are binding and deviation violates fairness and equality.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that pandemic disruptions cannot justify erosion of statutory safeguards. Uniform entrance tests serve national interest and educational equity.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Admissions must strictly follow statutory procedures.
ii. Academic Councils must be consulted on admission modes.
iii. Consortium obligations must be honoured in letter and spirit.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces statutory governance, academic autonomy, and constitutional equality in higher education. It curtails executive overreach and affirms that emergencies cannot legitimise procedural illegality. The ruling strengthens trust in centralised admissions and institutional accountability.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249
2. Marathwada University v. Seshrao Chavan, [1989] 2 SCR 454
3. Christian Medical College Vellore v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 705

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India
2. National Law School of India Act, 1986