The Karnataka High Court today pronounced that the state government doesn’t have the power to effectuate a legislation which mandates 25% domicile reservation at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLSIU) via National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Amendment Act, 2020.
The order, which was passed by a Division Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ravi V Hosmani had on September 1 reserved its decision in the instant matter after hearing a batch of pleas challenging the provision of introducing 25% domicile reservation at NLSIU Bangalore. The Court had earlier granted an interim stay on the NLSIU Amendment Act, ahead of admissions to the University for this academic year.
Case Background
There were numerous petitions filed after the State government of Karnataka brought an amendment to reserve 25% of the seats for domiciled students at NLISU, Bangalore.
The first petition in the matter had been moved by filed by 17-year-old student Balachandar Krishnan through Senior Advocate KG Raghavan along with Advocate Karan Joseph appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner, being a CLAT aspirant filed a petition with an apprehension that the Amendment Act will adversely affect the petitioner’s opportunity to get a seat in NLSIU.
The second plea, being in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), was moved by Advocate CK Nandakumar which contended the move on similar lines
The third petition was filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) through Senior Advocate Vikramjit Banerjee along with Advocate Shridhar Prabhu. The petition stated stated that the Karnataka government went ahead and enacted the Amendment Act by violating the set procedure, i.e. without prior consultation with the BCI.
Court’s Order scrapping 25% domicile reservation in NLSIU, Bangalore
The court held that the Karnataka’s state legislature and the government only had a limited say in the affairs of the institute and by assuming the responsibilities of the Executive Council, it will create two power centres, one being the state government and the other being Executive Council. The bench opined that the state government is to only act as a facilitator towards providing land, financial grants and related facilities to the institution.
