NLSIU Amendment Act is contrary to parent Act, does not satisfy twin tests of Art 14: Karnataka HC quashes 25% domicile reservation

The Karnataka High Court today quashed the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Amendment Act, 2020, by which 25% reservation was introduced at the University for students domiciled in the state..The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ravi V Hosmani in a batch of pleas challenging the 25% domicile reservation introduced at NLSIU Bangalore. The order reads, ."For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned reservation (under NLSIU Amendment Act) is struck down as the intelligible differentia has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and therefore, does not meet the twin tests under Article 14 of the Constitution."Karnataka High Court.The Bench held that the NLSIU Amendment Act was ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of the parent Act..The Court further held that the state government does not have the power to enact the Amendment Act that brought in the 25% domicile reservation for admissions to NLSIU.."Therefore, the State Legislature does not have any power or authority under the Act (NLSIU Act) to mandate the Law School (NLSIU) to horizontally reserve 25% of the seats for the students of Karnataka.".Adding on, the Court said,."By this, we do not mean that it does not have the legislative competence under Schedule VII of the Constitution of India...We note that the state did not retain or reserve any role for itself in the matter of administration, management and control of the Law School. Thus, the Amendment is ultra vires the Act...".The Court also noted that NLSIU is an autonomous and independent entity, having an "all India national character". .Referring to the parent Act, the Court further held that only the Executive Council of NLSIU has the power to introduce reservation for the law school. ."In other words, an Amendment to an Act cannot have the effect of adversely impacting the rest of the Statute or Act, thereby causing an uncertainty in its implementation.".In its order, the Bench further opined that NLS is not on par with the other law schools because of its curriculum, reservation policy, control of Bar Council of India, trimester system, manner of incorporation, Chancellor being Chief Justice of India, etc..The Court also opined,."Just because other law schools are giving domicile reservation, does not mean NLS also should give it." .The Court was quite keen to note that no scientific study was conducted for the object sought to be achieved by the Karnataka government in introducing the reservation. Therefore, the new reservation policy is not only contrary to the objects of the law school but also, serves no purpose, it was held..This apart, the Court held that the 5% concession to be given to Karnataka students (under the 25% domicile reservation) would tamper with the merit list, and therefore, is not permissible under the ambit of Article 14..The Court however, clarified that it did not interfere with the decision of NLSIU with respect to increasing the number of seats from 80 to 120 for its undergraduate course..After pronouncing the order, the Court directed NLSIU to comply with the timeline for admission of CLAT students. .Breaking: Karnataka HC reserves order in challenge to 25% Domicile Reservation at NLSIU.The Court had reserved its verdict on September 1. It had earlier granted an interim stay on the NLSIU Amendment Act, ahead of admissions to the University for this academic year..[Breaking] NLSIU Domicile Reservation: Karnataka HC grants interim stay on NLSIU Amendment Act, directs preparation of new seat list.The first plea in the matter had been moved by filed by 17-year-old student Balachandar Krishnan, a CLAT aspirant. The plea states that the Amendment Act will adversely affect the petitioner's opportunity to get a seat in NLSIU. Senior Advocate KG Raghavan along with Advocate Karan Joseph appeared for the petitioner..[25% Domicile Reservation at NLSIU] Repeated postponements, difficulties in conducting CLAT are reasons for NLAT: NLSIU tells Karnataka HC .The second plea, being in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), was moved by Advocate CK Nandakumar..The Bar Council of India (BCI) has filed the third petition in the matter. The plea states that the Karnataka government went ahead and enacted the Amendment Act without prior consultation with the BCI. Senior Advocate Vikramjit Banerjee along with Advocate Shridhar Prabhu appeared for BCI. .[Read the order here]