A Karnataka HC Division Bench comprising of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ravi Hosmani will pass order in a batch of pleas challenging the 25% domicile reservation at NLSIU.
The judgment will be pronounced by the Bench at 4:30 pm.
Bench: State does not have the power to enact the 25% Reservation for Domicile Students in NLSIU.
NLSIU Amendment Act is ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of the parent Act, NLSIU Act.
This is the first part.
Bench: NLS is not on par with the other Law Schools because of its curriculum, reservation policy, control of BCI, trimester system etc
Karnataka students' aspirations cannot be said to be in Karnataka alone especially with LPG. (liberalisation, Privatization and Globalization)
Regional Backwardness would not apply here.
Bench: Let executive council make a reservation policy for women or for weaker sections of the society. That would be a challenge for the students. This is not on record.
Breaking: NLSIU Amendment Act is struck down, does not meet twin test of Article 14.
Bench: No scientific study conducted for the object sought. New reservation policy is contrary to the purpose of the Law School
Ultimately no purpose is served. The twin test of reservation in Article 14 is not met.
Bench: 5% concession to be given to Karnataka Students (under 25% domicile reservation) is tampering with the Merit List, not permissible under Article 14.
Bench refers to a judgement and says - Rule of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun.
Bench: We have not interefered with 120 seats. Everything else is interfered with.
We are not done. First have patience, says the Bench.
On reservation of women, Petitioner Adv CK Nandakumar says that women have been performing exceedingly well. Recently, a student got 18 medals.
Bench: Yes, I read about her, Yamuna.
Bench: When is the result of CLAT coming?
Response: October 5.
Bench: We are well within the timeline.
Breaking: Karnataka High Court quashes 25% domicile reservation at NLSIU Bangalore [Read full story] #nlsiu@NLSIUofficial
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.