'Domicile Reservation Goes Against Objective Of National Law School': Bar Council Of India Tells Karnataka HC

A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ravi V Hosmani was also told by Banerjee that "The ethos of the institution (NLSIU) is that it does not matter from where you come from. It could have been called anything but it is called THE National Law School."

He read out from the parent NLSIU Act and the apprised the court about the composition of the Executive Council, Academic Council and other post held by members at the NLS to indicate that it was an autonomous institution and the role of the State Government was limited as a facilitator to set up the institute in Bengaluru.

Banerjee said "The Bar Council of India Trust has established the School." He added that "Their (state) amendment goes against the spirit of the Act itself. " He said that BCI has tremendous control over NLS and because of the reservations, the members were aggrieved and a resolution was passed by BCI to file a petition in the high court challenging the reservation.

He also questioned the reason cited by the State for bringing in the reservation which is based on the ground that Universities in other states have introduced domicile reservation. Banerjee said "The entire basis of the state argument is - look there are other states with reservation. Arguing even for the sake of arguments, it is apparent the state can do this in State Universities."  

He also apprised the court about the land lease of the University and informed that the lease is between the state and Bar Council of India and it was in existence even before the enactment of the NLSIU ACT.

Later Advocate Shridhar Prabhu made supplementary submissions on behalf of the BCI and said "If the parent Act is tampered by this Amendment it runs contrary to the Advocates Act of 1961."

The bench also sought clarification from the University as to how the 5 percent concession for Karnataka Students would be computed. Senior Advocate Uday Holla referred to SC Judgement in the case of AIIMS, which states 'merit cannot be completely forsaken and went on to explain the revised seat matrix after the amendment.

He said out of 120 seats, 28 seats will be reserved for SC/ST category. Remaining seats 92 will be for the general category.

"If a candidate in the general list has secured 150 marks, we go down the list, try to find out if there are Karnataka students. Suppose a Karnataka student has got 147 marks he will be given 5 percent concession. He will displace a person who has got 150 marks in the general list", Holla submitted.

The bench raised doubts on how the concession would be given to the students.

Justice Nagarathna said "What is the basis for this? How can you do this by issuing a notification.? She further commented that "If the difference between the first rank holder in CLAT and Karnataka Student is narrow, if you give 5 percent concession to Karnataka Student, can he be super number one."

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 inserts 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."

The court will continue hearing the matter on Thursday.

Report about yesterday's hearing may be read here :

'It Will Only Help Students Of Elite Schools': Karnataka HC Asks State To Clarify Who Will Benefit From NLSIU Domicile Reservation