Top StoriesJustice UU Lalit Recuses From NLSIU Appeal Against Karnataka HC Order Quashing 25% Domicile Reservation Radhika Roy12 Jan 2021 11:08 PMShare This – xJustice UU Lalit of the Supreme Court recused himself from a matter pertaining to an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against aKarnataka High Court order which struck down the 25 percent domicile reservation at the National Law School of India University.Justice Lalit informed the Counsels present that he had represented a member of the governing board previously and would not be able…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginJustice UU Lalit of the Supreme Court recused himself from a matter pertaining to an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against aKarnataka High Court order which struck down the 25 percent domicile reservation at the National Law School of India University.Justice Lalit informed the Counsels present that he had represented a member of the governing board previously and would not be able to hear the appeal. Accordingly, the Court directed for the appeal to be listed before another Bench. On 29th September last year, a Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ravi V Hosmani of the High Court pronounced the order and said the “The amendment is ultra vires to the act. The State government has no State and has no direct say in the functioning of the law school. It is an autonomous institute and not aided by the state government.” The Bench said the Executive Council of the University has powers to introduce reservation and “If we allow this thing (state reservation) to be done virtually there will be two centers of control, one with executive council and other by state which will be an unhealthy trend.” It bserved that, “by the impugned amendment what is sought to be created is a state quota which is not permissible.” The Bench also stated “NLSIU is on par with AIIMS, IIT and IIM, where there is no reservation quota.” It has in the order said “This law school is not on par with other law schools. Other schools are giving reservations thus it is not necessary that Karnataka must also do it.” Moreover, comparing the reservation in NLSIU with other law schools, the bench has said “Other law schools came up with reservations as students were not getting in Karnataka school under the 80 seats quota.” The Bench rejected the argument of the State Government that the object of reservation was to retain talent in Karnataka. It said “Karnataka Students aspiration cannot be said to be in Karnataka alone when opportunities are available overseas and India.” It was further suggested that “Executive Council of NLSIU consider Reservation for WOMEN and ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS OF THE SOCIETY at the law school.” The Court has concluded by saying “No scientific study is conducted, the reservation impact is contrary to what is the purpose of the law school. The impugned reservation is struck down as it does not meet the twin test of Article 14. In March, the Karnataka State Assembly passed the National Law School Of India (Amendment) Act, 2020, which received the Karnataka Governor’s assent on April 27. As per this amendment, NLSIU should reserve horizontally twenty-five percent of seats for ‘students of Karnataka’. The amendment inserted the following proviso in Section 4 of the National Law School of India Act :- “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and the regulations made thereunder, the school shall reserve horizontally twenty-five percent of seats for students of Karnataka.” As per the explanation of this Section, “student of Karnataka” means a student who has studied in any one of the recognized educational institutions in the State for a period of not less than ten years preceding to the qualifying examination.Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
December 16, 2015 By: The Office of Governor Tom Wolf Like Governor Tom Wolf on Facebook: Facebook.com/GovernorWolf The Blog, Videos We have got to get this right, or we pay a price down the road.Watch Governor Wolf talk about the importance of investing in early childhood education, and then read Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel’s blog post for more about fighting crime by investing in kids. BLOG: Governor Wolf Talks about Investing in Early Childhood Education (VIDEO) SHARE Email Facebook Twitter
PRO Johnny Looby says the both players will be a big loss if they’re not able to line-out. Kilfeacle & District have been hit with injury problems ahead of their Munster Junior Cup semi-final clash with Shannon this weekend.Conor Hartigan in the back-row and Darren Lowry at out-half are both serious doubts ahead of Sunday’s game in Coonagh.The Tipp outfit haven’t reached the decider of the Munster Junior Cup since winning the competition back in 2002.