The Court directed NLU Delhi to issue a fresh admission notification on or before July 2.
A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad passed the Order.
The petitioners challenging the reservation had made a prima facie case for a stay on the move, today, observed the Court.
The next hearing shall commence on August 18.
A petition had been filed by Students of NLUD against the introduction of 50% horizontal reservation at the University for candidates who have cleared their qualifying examinations from an institute in Delhi.
Pia Singgh, one of the petitioners intended to pursue an LL.M. from NLU Delhi after graduating from a University in Rajasthan and claimed that she has been adversely affected by rule to provide 50% horizontal reservation to the candidates who have passed their qualifying examination from Delhi. And the University also extended 22% OBC & 10% EWS reservations in the LL.M. course, without increasing the number of seats for the next academic year.
On the last date of hearing, Arguments were raised that NLUD was not a Central university or a national institute of excellence, and was only a state university which came into existence on the basis of the Act enacted by the Delhi legislature.
Arguments were raised that the reservation policy was in accordance with the NLUD statute, in furtherance of Article 41 of the Constitution, and was protected by several judgments of the Supreme Court by the Delhi Government.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaulon the other hand, vehemently argued that the Delhi government “arm-twisted” the University administration into rolling out the reservation for local candidates, in violation of the NLUD Act.
Without even awaiting the decision of a Committee headed by Supreme Court judge, Justice NV Ramana on the issue of domicile reservation at NLU Delhi, the decision to roll out the impugned reservation was taken.
Arguments were raised by Kaul on the criteria of clearing the “qualifying examination” from an institute in Delhi was not rational or valid, as it may exclude a Delhiite who moves to another city for his 10th/12th standard schooling.
Petitioner was represented by Advocates NipunSaxena and Nishant Khatri. The Delhi government was represented by Standing Counsel Ramesh Singh.
Advocate Sanjay Vashishta argued for NLU Delhi and the intervenors were represented Advocate Naman Joshi.