Supreme Court to shortly resume hearing the challenge to National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Bangalore's move to conduct its separate entrance exam - the National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT)
- Role of executive council vis-a-vis academic council
- Whether NLS being memeber of consortium could have conducted a separate exam
- Nature of exam
Justice Bhushan: And fourth issue you address on is that a large number of students were deprived from appearing for the exam because of the short notice. So violation of Article 14 also needs to be addressed
Datar: And the fifth issue I'll address on is locus standi and maintainability.
Justice Bhushan: Petitioner no. 2 has sufficient locus.
Datar: He was the former VC of NLSIU.
Datar: They should have been challenged by the CLAT itself.
Datar addresses on the point of consortium.
Datar: Prayer C is not available anymore because CLAT has removed me from the Consortium.
Justice Bhushan: They have removed only from the office, not from the Consortium.
Datar refers to minutes of the meeting of the members of the Consortium where it was opined that if NLSIU proceeds with the separate exam, it cannot remain part of the Consortium.
Justice Shah: It was only an opinion.
Datar reads the resolution passed by the governing body of the Consortium through which the VC of NLSIU was divested of his position held in thr Consortium.
Datar addresses the Court on the issue of executive council vis-a-vis academic council.
Datar; Academic council will be responsible for the maintenance of standard of education in the School/University and does not have anything to do with the Entrance exam.
Datar: The executive council is responsible for making regulations and for amending and modifying them.
The proposition is if a regulatory body has not made regulations then chief executive body can act in the absence of regulations.
(Datar cites precedent of SC on this)
Datar: There cannot be vacuum.
Justice Bhushan: You're right that there cannot be vacuum and for a period of time there are no regulations, the body can act.
Datar: With regard to conduct of exam, academic council can make recommendations as regards who can be the examiner.
(Datar now refers to regulations that provide for appointment of VC by the Executive committee)
(Datar reads the provisions from regulations which empower VC to take actions in certain situations which can be addressed and approved by the committee later)
Datar: This is like taking an action and getting it ratified.
Datar: I will refer to decisions and how CLAT came about but till date there is no direction from the Court saying there shall be a common exam.
There is no mandate from the SC for holding a common test like CLAT... We just came together to form a society for this.
Datar: Will justify why I held a separate exam.
Justice Reddy: When you took the decision to hold the test, were you part of the society?
Datar: Yes. But I will justify
Justice Reddy: Legally, as part of the society could you have separated from the society to hold the exam?
Datar: The by-laws of the society are like agreement
Justice Shah: Did you inform the Consortium that you were going to hold a separate exam.
Datar: Number of times. I had mentioned that we have a trimester system, don't postpone CLAT further. This was not a knee-jerk reaction.
Justice Reddy: So as on today you are part of the Consortium?
Datar: I have not exited the Consortium. But my submission is they have said as for #CLAT2020 I am no longer part of it and have asked for all records, accounts to be shifted to Hyderabad. I have not exited.
Datar: On 10 or 12th August it was decided that exam will be held on Sept 7.
On Aug 28 a meeting was held and they postponed it on the grounds that WB has lockdown on Sept 7 and Bihar on Sept 6. But why not hold it on Sept 13?
Datar: They say unanimous as if I am a party to it. Meeting of consortium held on August 27 and they say resolution was with my consent. In my affidavit I have said it did not have my consent
Datar: General body of NLU consortium met on August 10 decide when can CLAT be held. Clat2020 was decided to be held on Sept 7. It was signed by Secy treasurer
Datar: This is only a society, not cooperative society. We are registered under the Societies Registration Act. In case of cooperative societies, bylaws are much more onerous.
Datar (quoting the clauses of the by-laws): By joining CLAT, we have not surrendered our autonomy.
For MPhil courses, the bylaws are not fully implemented since everyone is conducting their own exams.
Datar: I want to make it clear, Justice Reddy asked if I'm still part so I said that this year due to the zero year problems, I will hold my exam only for this year.
Datar: Petitioners are alleging that I have violated the bylaws but I want to ask that where in the bylaws does it justify for them to postpone the exam without consulting all the VCs?
Where does it provide for shifting of accounts, records to Hyderabad?
Datar: There are many statements made that the exam was bogus and purity was not maintained.
Justice Bhushan: We have gone through the affidavit.
Justice Bhushan: We are sure the University would have taken steps to maintain the purity of the exam.
Justice Shah: But when there were allegations of certain malpractices in the exam, you also admitted it that there were malpractices but secrecy of exam was not compromised.
Datar: The day the CLAT took a decision to postpone, we called our faculty meeting and considered the options before us for this year
(Datar is reading from the affidavit on this regard)
Datar: Options before us were
- online entrance exam at centres identified across the country
- Home based proctored online exam
Datar: Our entrance fee is ₹150 because we wanted to make it accessible.
We made the exam 45 minutes long
Exam notification says we are following CLAT but the exam instead of 2 years was for 45 minutes.
Datar: Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan had made a comment that we were changing the game, when asked to play cricket, we asked them to play football.
But no, students were preparing for a test match and they were asked to play a 50 over match. It's still cricket.
Justice Shah: But the point is students were preparing for a 2 hour long exam and suddenly at such short notice they were told that now their exam is only 45 minutes long.
Datar: The syllabus is the same. But instead of a 2 hour exam we have shrunk it to 45 minutes. Marking system is the same as CLAT.
(On a lighter note)
Justice Shah: Mr. Datar, we have you one hour to argue, you have exceeded that time, so should we fail you?
Datar: Fail me Your Lordships but don't allow the Writ petition.
Senior Counsel Sajan Poovayya, for VC of NLSIU, begins making his submissions.
Poovayya first addresses the issue of change in format of the entrance exam.
Poovayya: Mine is an exam of lower pressure threshold. Students had to answer 45 questions in 45 minutes
Poovayya: The press release on malpractices said that we had taken note of complaints and we have zero tolerance for malpractices and we will look into it
Poovayya: In a physical exam, invigilation takes care of physical acts of malpractices like removing chits etc but in a remote exam, invigilation is not restricted to this.
In remote proctored exam, even the data on key strokes of the computer system is collected.
Poovayya: Extensive technical safeguards were taken.
We made use of AI based proctoring which assesses aspects such as number of times window switch took place.
One of the most renowned firms does a post test auditing of this data.
Poovayya: Other safeguards are answer behaviour pattern and device information including candidate's key strokes' data.
Or traditional intelligence on exam.oaoer leak does not apply here. There is no single exam paper. Questions are similar but there are three batches.
Poovayya: No two persons got the question paper where the questions were in the same order. They all got same batch of questions in one batch of exam, but order was different.
Poovayya: The results are not out, they will be out subject to My Lords' decision but we have analysed all the data from the exam and it has been found that those candidates that engaged in malpractices have been disqualified.
Poovayya: Then, the decision to hold a home proctored online exam was not mine. The options were placed before the entire faculty and a unanimous decision was taken yo hold the exam in this form.
Poovayya: When the first time the decision was taken to defer the CLAT to June, I didn't oppose and NLSIU didn't oppose because I wouldn't have suffered a zero year.
(Poovayya takes the Court through the timeline of subsequent deferrals of the CLAT2020 to a point that NLSIU faced the risk of zero year)
Poovayya: Mine is the only law University in the country that has a trimester system and the rigours of the this system are difficult.
Poovayya: Today in the beginning even Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan corrected his submission from earlier to agree that NLSIU is the only University for law to have trimester system.
Poovayya concludes.
Senior Advocate PS Narasimha makes his submissions.
Narasimha: We are all here for saving the institution. Today the question is if the very existence of this institution.
Narasimha: After the judicial intervention and efforts of all the stakeholders of coming together, the consortium was formed for the purpose of holding a common entrance exam for the students
Narasimha: What will happen to the whole purpose of it if everyone wants to walk on and walk out. It is not a private club, all of them subserve an important obligation.
"Delhi will choke. God save us all if this is how you want Delhi to live."
Delhi High Court makes strong remarks over the Central government's plans to take over properties in the Lutyen's Delhi area, including the Delhi Gymkhana Club and the Polo Ground.
#DelhiGymkhanaClub
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the remarks while hearing a plea filed by the Indian Polo Association over the government's eviction notice.
The Court said that green spaces in Delhi were anyways scarce and the "little green space" remaining in the NDMC area is also being taken over.
The Court questioned if the government is plannig to make high rises in the area.
"Little breather we have in the NDMC area is also gonna go and all of us are going to suffocate and die," the Bench remarked.
#Breaking
“It’s not a small matter and not a standalone case.”
Delhi High Court orders removal of videos on social media platforms calling a sitting High Court judge "murderer" and blaming him for the death of 6 people in a building collapse in Saket on May 30.
Court passed the order after Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) filed a criminal contempt petition.
#Contempt #CriminalContempt
The videos were uploaded by a person named Dr Kapil Kakar, who claims to be a psychologist and social activist.
He is also stated to be the maker of a series called 'Black Justice'.
A Division Bench of Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Madhu Jain passed the order.
The Court examined the videos and stated that instances like these were becoming very regular and coming regularly.
Ceremonial bench to commence shortly on the last working day of Justices JK Maheshwari and Pankaj Mithal
#SupremeCourt
CJI: this is like a ceremonial constitution bench. (Smiles)
AG R Venkataramani: Most judges are regarded for compassion and creativity....the two judges are no exception.
SG Mehta: I have never seen his Lordships without a smile on their face. In Justice Maheswari we found an elderly friend who always helped us. Justice Mithal's court always had a warm and conducive environment..
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: I appeared before Justice Mithal before AP HC and it seems like 6 months ago. But it has been 5 years. Other day Justice Mithal why are you here and not a junior. I like that. Your Lordships retire in pink of health. 65 is not a retirement age. Now we have to get used to the new lot which is coming now. It will take another 6 months.
NEET UG Paper Leak: Supreme Court to shortly hear pleas by various stakeholders seeking measures ranging from replacing the NTA to shifting NEET entirely to a computer-based format
Bench: Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe
#NEET2026
SG Tushar Mehta: as directed, we have filed an affidavit. It’s filed by Dr. Radhakrishnan. He headed the commitee. The recommendations, suggestions etc. were to be implemented this year.
Court: we want to ask, you originally were part of the expert commitee, how much of monitoring has happened about the implementation? How did this failure occur? Despite your monitoring on the basis of HPC recommendation, if this incident has happened, then there would be a problem with the recommendation. Or the monitoring may not have happened.
Radhakrishnan: we had recommended 60 suggestions. In the first 60, mostly they have been implemented. A few are still in the process. In 2025 NEET UG was conducted satisfactorily. There were incidents of power failures in some centres, otherwise the recommendations were implemented and it worked.
Radhakrishnan: there are two areas, the first thing we have done is involvement of all state governments and district admin for secured conducting of the test.
Court: what was not in contemplation of the HPC that lead to this?
Radhakrishnan: certain practices are under implementation. At the moment these are being taken care of for the Reexamination on May 21.
Court: monitoring commitee meets regularly?
Radhakrishnan: yes. Our target is to ensure reforms are implemented.
Court: the real problem won’t stop till actual accountability arises. Not in terms of so and so will be liable, it will be effective when we know which individual shoulders the responsibility lies. Unless you identify the duty holders it will be a diffused obligation.
SG Mehta: the buck must stop somewhere.
Court: unless we identify the responsibility. If something goes wrong, we don’t know. It is a most sensitive situation.
Mehta: Government is concerned about youth.
Court: you need to learn from other institutions.
Mehta: some new mechanisms are put in place for 21st examinations. It may not be appropriate to divulge what’s there. Otherwise it may defeat the purpose.
Court: Is there a regular office who conduct it? With institutional memory?
Mehta: the NTA is having institutional memory. But it does not have domain experts. We have got experts from the IIT system etc. they have been brought into the system.
[Regarding persistent delay in pronouncement of judgments by several high courts]
CJI Surya Kant: Amicus had filed four volume reports before this court compiling High Court wise data before us. All suggestions from HCs were also compiled for uniform judicial guidelines. We are of the view that this is a fit case under Article 142 for our intervention to pass uniform guidelines.
#BREAKING CJI: 1. A matter where judgment is reserved, judgment to be pronounced within 3 months of reserving. Faster decisions in matters of personal liberty etc.
2. Bail application orders ideally within next day and if reserved then decision next day
3. Bail orders to be communicated to jail authorities
4. Undertrial to be released same day of bail or maximum the next day.
5. The trial court to inform HC of compliance.
CJI: 6. operative part to be announced in court and reasons to be uploaded within 7 days. Cases such as habeas corpus, demolition etc.
7. Necessary changes to be made to the HC website by the Chief justice of the respective high courts.
Supreme Court recognises Election Commission’s power to conduct Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act, while upholding the Bihar SIR.
The Court says EC can undertake a limited electoral inquiry into citizenship, but cannot finally determine citizenship. Deleted persons must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act #SIR #supremecourt @ECISVEEP
Judgment in a nutshell👇
• Supreme Court holds that the Election Commission has power to conduct Special Intensive Revision under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act.
• The ruling arises from the Bihar SIR, but the legal principle laid down concerns the EC’s broader power to undertake SIR exercises.
• Court says SIR is a special statutory mechanism distinct from ordinary revision under Section 21(2) and Rule 25.
• Bench holds that free and fair elections depend on the integrity, accuracy and credibility of electoral rolls.
• Court finds the Bihar SIR was backed by legitimate constitutional purpose and was not merely an administrative exercise.
• SC holds that the SIR framework satisfies proportionality, given the safeguards of notice, hearing, objections, speaking orders and appeal.
• Court says inclusion in electoral rolls creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, not an absolute bar on verification.
• EC can examine citizenship only for deciding inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls, not to finally declare citizenship status.
• Deletion on citizenship doubts does not mean the person is declared a non citizen. Final adjudication lies with authorities under the Citizenship Act.
• EC must refer persons deleted from the 2003 Bihar roll on citizenship grounds to the competent authority within four weeks.
[What favours the petitioners in the Supreme Court’s Bihar SIR ruling]
• Court clarifies EC cannot finally determine citizenship and its findings are confined only to electoral consequences.
• SC says inclusion in electoral rolls creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of existing electors.
• Bench directs that persons deleted on citizenship grounds must be referred to competent authorities under the Citizenship Act within 4 weeks.
• Court emphasises notice, hearing, speaking orders, appeals and judicial review as mandatory safeguards against arbitrary exclusion.