"There is no interim order... The exams will go on" : SC On Plea Seeking Stay on NLSIU's 25% Domicile Reservation

Supreme Court Refuses to Grant stay on NLSIU's 25% Domicile Reservation.

A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat refused to stay National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru’s 25% reservation for Karnataka students.

Government of Karnataka had challenged the Karnataka High Court judgment striking down 25% domicile reservation implemented at NLSIU. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for a petitioner, prayed for a stay on the NLSIU notification giving effect to the said reservation policy.

In furtherance of its inclusion and expansion plan which was approved in April/May this year, the university announced earlier this week the implementation of domicile reservations from the academic year 2021-22. Last year, the Karnataka High Court struck down the NLSIU Amendment Act, 2020, which introduced 25% reservation for students domiciled in the state, owing to excess of authority and breach of provisions of the NLSIU Act.

According to the High Court, introduction of domicile reservation is not within the authority of the state government. The state government has challenged this, claiming that the High Court erred in observing that NLSIU is not a state institution and thus, not within the control of state government.

Moreover the Supreme Court turned down the prayer made by Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan for listing the matter before the date of CLAT, July 23. “There is no interim order. List the matter in August. The exams will go on.”, Justice L. Nageswara Rao said.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog