Plea Filed in Jharkhand HC Challenging NLSIU’s NLAT and CLAT exit

A petition has been moved in the Jharkhand High Court challenging the decision of the National Law School of India (NLSIU) Bangalore to break away from CLAT and hold its own entrance exam this year for law school admissions.

The petition prays for quashing the notification issued by NLSIU yesterday wherein it had intimated its decision to hold an online National Law Aptitude Test, 2020 (NLAT) on September 12 for admissions to the University in lieu of CLAT which is scheduled to be held on September 28.

The contentions made by the petitioners include:

• NLSIU’s decision to declare a separate examination for admission to its 5-year BA LLB programme for 2020-21 is illegal and arbitrary;
• NLSIU’s September 3 notification issued to that effect is violative of clause 15.7 of the bye-laws of the Consortium of National Law Universities;
• NLSIU’s decision to hold a separate examination without withdrawing from the CLAT consortium is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical;
• NLSIU’s decision to hold a separate examination, while being a permanent member of the CLAT Consortium of National Law Universities is unlawful and arbitrary;
• NLSIU’s withdrawal from the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) violates the rights of the petitioners to have an examination in a just and fair manner;
• decision to hold a separate entrance exam after aspirants filled the registration forms for CLAT is violative of the principle of promissory estoppel;
• Declaration of a new date of examination and a new exam pattern  around 10 days before the declared date of examination is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical
• The action is against the established precedents of the Supreme Court for the conduct of fair and just examination

Also Read: NLSIU Backs Out of CLAT 2020, Admissions for 2020-2021 Based on its own Entrance Test –NLAT

It is also noted that the Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR, Prof Faizan Mustafa had expressed his dismay at decision to conduct the NLAT, while still being a member of the CLAT Consortium, which is said to be in violation of the Consortium’s bye-laws.