Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Apply 30% Domicile Reservation for the Academic Year 2019-2020

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

The Supreme Court approved the decision of NUJS not to apply new reservation benefits to the batch of 2019-2020 saying that the amendment was prospective. The Bench compromising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat heard the matter. 

Background of the Case 

The grievance was the admission of the Appellant in NUJS in a 5-year law course per the WBNUJS Amendment Act, 2018. The said Act came into the operation on 21st May 2019 which gave 30 % reservation to domicile in West Bengal in the intake of the university. The schedule for CLAT was 12th May 2019 but it was held on 26th May 2019. Results were further declared on 14th June 2019 in which the Appellant ranked 731.

The Appellant’s conflict was that the Act came into operation before the examination therefore the benefit should be subsequently extended by the University for the academic session of 2019-2020. On this factor, the Appellant filed a Petition before the Calcutta High Court. The university had released a brochure to fill 127 seats and as per the brochure, 74 seats were for unreserved category and 10 seats were for domicile students. 

The university contended that the information about seats and examination was already given in January 2019, and all the domicile reservation seats were already filled and the last student to get the admission in the domicile category ranked 261. It was also said that the nature of the Act was prospective and did not apply to the current academic year. 

Calcutta High Court dismissed the Petition stating that the Act was prospective. They further stated that moving of unreserved category seats to reserved ones would disrupt the whole process of admission and would prejudice the admission process.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Senior advocate Vikas Singh appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Justice Gupta asked the counsel to see the amendment and said that it was up to the discretion of the university as to when the amendment came into operation. The lawyer, on the contrary, submitted that the amendment itself states that it will come into force immediately 

He further stated that the judgment, which stated that if a meritious student had been duly deprived of admission, he should approach the Court to direct the institution to increase the number of seats. Further, if the Court finds any fault in administration, it would reduce the management quota seats. Justice Bhat asked Singh if the judgment was about reservations. It was then clarified that the judgment was about admissions. 

Justice Bhat said that allowing this could not predict how many will come later the next year as reservation will be further given. Singh said that the 30% was not disputed, the question was of the method of providing reservation. The examination was held after the amendment came into operation and the Appellant comes within the number stipulated. The WBNUJS Act says that reservation would come in to force from the next year. 

Respondent’s Arguments

Advocate Kunal Chaterji appeared on behalf of the Respondent. He contended that CLAT initially was to be held on 12th May 2019 but was thereby postponed to 26th May 2019 after the amendment came in to force. By this time, students had already filled the form and listed down their preference of colleges as per the previous policy. Knowing about the new reservation policy would have made them choose their home University first.

It was also submitted that even if the reservation was available to the Appellant, he only had a remote chance of getting into the university. 

Chatterji then relied upon the case of P. Bhima Reddy v. the State of Mysore and said that the amendment was prospective and not retrospective in nature. This was as the term ‘at once’ meant within a reasonable time. The executive board of the university took reasonable time in implementing the amendment and it was not arbitrary as the admission process started way before the amendment came into force. 

Advocate Mehrotra said that the judgment of S. Krishna Sradha would not be applicable here as it spoke about the management quota which does not exist in NLUs. 

Court’s Observation

The Court stated that the amendment came in to force on 21st May 2019, and there was nothing mentioned in the implementation of the amendment in ongoing admission. It was also noted that the admission council resolved on 27th July 2019 that reservation would be applicable from the next academic year only. On 10th August 2020, the executive council accepted this decision. 

The Court said that the reserved seats were duly displayed in January at the time of the admission process as the new policy was not yet in force. The action of the university, therefore, was not illegal. The Court also stated that the cases mentioned by the Appellant and the Respondent were irrelevant to the current scenario. 

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court found no error in the Calcutta High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -