Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Vacation Bench of UU Lalit and Deepak Gupta JJ. has passed an order directing National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) to award compensatory marks to candidates who lost time during this year’s Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) due to technical glitches by applying the formula suggested by V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate for Respondents 2&3, NUALS and core committee CLAT 2018 respectively, and include the qualified students in the second round of counselling. Compensatory marks would be awarded after taking note of data of total correct and incorrect answers given by the candidate during the online test.

However, the Court made clear that any seat allocation made pursuant to the first round of counselling shall not be affected by the revision of results. The Court said that a candidate who improves upon his score after the publication of revised results and thereby becomes eligible for admission to another NLU will not lose the fee deposited with the earlier NLU. This revision has to be undertaken by June 15 and the revised results have to be published on CLAT website by June 16.

Earlier, on June 6, the court had refused to stay the counselling process and had said that any steps in the matter would be subject to further orders of the apex court. The apex court had on June 11  refused to order a “re-test” of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 or stop the counselling process. [Disha Panchal v. Union of India,  2018 SCC OnLine SC 603, order dated 13-06-2018]

Law School NewsOthers

After the Vacation Bench  of L. Nageswara Rao and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ refused to cancel the CLAT 2018 examination and allowed NUALS to declare the result, the CLAT 2018 results have been published today on the CLAT website.

CLAT 2018 was conducted by National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS). The said entrance examination was under the radar due to a lot of criticism and irregularities placed by the students. Various representations were filed by the aggrieved students who had to face such irregularities while appearing for the said test. One of the writ petition challenging the conduct of CLAT 2018 was filed before the Supreme Court seeking the cancellation of the examination.

The Law Schools aspirants can access their results here.

High Courts

Allahabad High Court: Allowing a writ petition by a bunch of law students for quashing the notice/advertisement issued by “Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University” (RMLNLU) which prescribed the maximum age limit of 20 years as an essential criterion for appearing in the Common Law Admission Test -2015 (CLAT-2015), the Court held that there is no provision either in the State Universities or under the National Law School of India Act, 1986 or any other law where examination conducting universities have been empowered to fix upper age limit in the Common Law Entrance Examination.

The Court bashed RMLNLU and said that it has completely shut it eyes to the point that Bar Council of India has itself withdrawn its notification prescribing upper age limit as 20 years for admission in the stream of Integrated Bachelor of Law Degree program, therefore RMLNLU has no authority of law to limit the upper age of candidates for appearing in the examination.

In the instant case, where the petitioners are represented by Sushmita Mukherjee and Abhijeet Mukherj, the Court has discussed decisions of various high courts which declared clause 28, schedule III Rule 11 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008 as ultra vires and unconstitutional for prescribing maximum upper age limit for the stream of integrated bachelor of law degree program which violates the fundamental right under Article 19 of COI.

The Court while directing the Vice Chancellor of RMLNLU to accept the petitioners’ admission form and to allow other similar candidates to appear in the examination, held that RMLNLU is an agency which was given the responsibility to hold CLAT-2015 on behalf of the concerned universities, in accordance with the admission procedure laid down by the Bar Council of India, which is mandatory for it to follow. Devasheesh Pathak v. Bar Council of India, decided on 26.02.2015