Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 2336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. NAGARATHNA, RAVI V. HOSMANI, JJ.
Balachandar Krishnan and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Karnataka and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 8788, 8951 and 9145 of 2020 [EDN-RES]
Decided On : 29-09-2020
For the Appellant : K.G. Raghavan, Senior Counsel, Vikramjit Banerjee, Addl. Solicitor General of India, Karan Joseph, Nandakumar C.K. and Sridhar Prabhu.
For the Respondents:Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Advocate General, Vikram Huilgol, AGA, C. Shashikantha, Asst. Solicitor General of India, Vikramjit Banerjee, Addl. Solicitor General of India, Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel, Sridhar Prabhu, Aditya Narayan and Lakshmi Menon.
For the Impleading Applicant : Aditya Sondhi, Senior Counsel, Shivashankar S.K. and Praveen Kumar Hiremath.
Headnote:
Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 - Section 3 and 6(ii) and (iv) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15(1) and 14 - National Law School of India Act, 1986 - Section 4 (3) - National Law School of India (Amendment) Act, 2020 - Common Law Admission Test - Notification - Process of admission – Reservation - Whether impugned Amendment to Act is sustainable in law? More particularly, whether the impugned Amendment is in accordance with the Constitution of India - Petitioner has challenged vires of Amendment Act, which provides 25% horizontal reservation by way of institutional preference for students who have studied in any recognized educational institution in Karnataka for a period of at least ten years preceding the date of qualifying examination, by insertion of sub-section (3) to Section 4 of Act, 1986 - Held, Reservation is a means to an end i.e., for upliftment of the beneficiaries of reservation, so that there could be relaxation in the admission process for those who are in need of reservation. But court find that the impugned reservation does not achieve such a purpose, rather, it is discriminatory and does not seek to achieve any object or purpose in instant case. Hence, court find that impugned reservation does not satisfy the twin test under Article 14 of Constitution. Also, court do not find any other object sought to be achieved by the impugned amendment nor any mischief to be remedied by the same except permitting less meritorious students to gain admission in respondent/Law School - when the process of admission had already commenced, provision of reservation in the respondent/Law School could not have been altered. Even though, it is a provision for the benefit of Karnataka students, one cannot lose sight of fact that same is detrimental to students who do not fulfill eligibility criteria provided by impugned Amendment - once the process for selection commences-admission in instant case-which consists of various steps such as inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, conducting of examination and preparation of list of selected candidates, all are different steps in the process of selection and hence, there can be no change or departure made in the said process - Quash Notification issued by respondent/Law School insofar as it makes reservation as per the impugned Amendment as per revised seat-matrix – Writ Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
B.V. Nagarathna, J.
1. Since, these writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, they have been connected together, heard at length and disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No. 8788 of 2020 has been filed by a student who is a resident of Bengaluru for about eight years and has completed his school education from Florence Public School and MES Kishora Kendra, Bengaluru, while Writ Petition No. 8951 of 2020 is a public interest litigation filed by two former students of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "respondent/Law School" or "respondent/Law University" for the sake of convenience). Writ Petition No. 9145 of 2020 has been filed by the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as "BCI" for the sake of convenience), a statutory body constituted, governed and functioning under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act" for short), through its Secretary.
3. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the vires of the National Law School of India (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Karnataka Act No. 13 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Act", for short) as being unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires. There is also a challenge to the revised seat matrix in B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) and LL.M. programmes issued by the respondent/Law School, vide Notification dated 04.08.2020.
BRIEF FACTS:
In W.P. No. 8788 of 2020:
4. The petitioner herein has stated that he is a resident of Bengaluru for about eight years and has completed his schooling in two institutions in Bengaluru. That he has registered for appearing in the Common Law Admission Test (hereinafter referred to as "the CLAT" for short) for the year 2020 in order to seek admission to the respondent/Law School for his five years B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) undergraduate programme pursuant to the Notification issued by the respondent/Law School. The petitioner has challenged the vires of the Amendment Act, which provides 25% horizontal reservation by way of institutional preference for students who have studied in any recognized educational institution in Karnataka for a period of at least ten years preceding the date of qualifying examination, by insertion of sub-section (3) to Section 4 of the National Law School of India Act, 1986 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), a copy of which is produced at Annexure - E to the writ petition.
5. According to the petitioner, the respondent/Law School has no power to provide for any kind of horizontal reservation (institutional or residential-based) in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 (P.A. Inamdar). That the petitioner learnt from newspaper reports that domicile based reservation for students of Karnataka by way of an amendment was passed by the Karnataka State Legislature providing 50% reservation but, the same was returned by the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka on the ground that such regional reservation could not be accepted. Thereafter, the Karnataka Legislature has passed the impugned Amendment Act introducing 25% horizontal reservation by way of institutional preference for students who have studied from any recognized educational institutions in Karnataka for a period of at least ten years preceding the date of qualifying examination by amending Section 4 of the Act.
6. According to the petitioner, the concept of institutional preference at the level of under-graduation in a professional course is unknown to law. That the respondent/Law School is an institution of national significance. It is a premier institution for excellence in legal education in India as well as in South Asia. The admission to the said institution must be on merit-based selection of students and satisfy the twin
