The Bar and the Bench both are witnessing testing times, given the latest developments. A petition is pending in the Supreme Court vis-à-vis the right of members of legislature to practice law. The judiciary is also undergoing internal brainstorming towards making the judicial system more transparent and accountable.

Amid such an environment of upheaval in the justice delivery system, the role and conduct of National Law Universities which are said to have revolutionised legal education in the country, also raises important concerns.

Advertisement

At present there are total 21 National Law Universities (NLUs) in the country. Out of these, 19 National Law Universities are party to the scheme of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) which conducts nation-wide common entrance exam for candidates who aspire to join NLUs.

However, the decade old National Law University, Delhi and the most recently established Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla have not joined the CLAT Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Hence, it raises a natural concern that when all other national law universities have joined hands to facilitate a single entrance examination for aspiring law students, why these two NLUs stand out.

This apprehension becomes much more relevant in the context of a petition filed in the Supreme Court more than a decade ago titled, Varun Bhagat vs Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 68 of 2006. Through this petition, it was prayed that the NLUs be directed to synchronise and centralise the admission process to the various national law universities, in the larger interest of aspiring law students.

This case in turn paved a way for emergence of the CLAT scheme. Should NLU-Delhi and NLU-Shimla be left uncorrected in their decision of conducting separate entrance test or should they be directed to compulsorily join CLAT, is therefore a question of public debate and high significance.

CLAT Scheme

Prior to CLAT, every candidate who would want to study in NLU had to purchase application forms of different NLUs and also had to run across the country to appear for separate entrance tests on varied dates.

The proceedings in the Varun Bhagat case witnessed an evolution of a recommendation for development of a scheme akin to CLAT. Resultantly, the CLAT structure was designed with an aim to benefit the lakhs of students in the country by providing them equal access of opportunity to contest for seat in all NLUs at one go, without a conflict of test dates and at much more affordable cost.

The present participating NLUs of CLAT include the national law universities, mentioned in no particular order, of Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal, Kolkata, Jodhpur, Raipur, Gandhinagar, Lucknow, Punjab, Patna, Kochi, Cuttack, Ranchi, Assam, Visakhapatnam, Tiruchirappalli, Mumbai, Nagpur and Aurangabad.

Non-Compliance

CLAT was undeniably a very progressive and unified move of the NLUs which could possibly set an example for many other disciplines to streamline the admission process. If this holds true, and further with a CLAT scheme based on the foundation of the Varun Bhagat case, one fails to understand why NLU-Delhi and NLU-Shimla should be allowed to stay out of the CLAT process.

Would it not jeopardise the interest of many aspiring law students who may have to appear separately for CLAT and these two NLUs? For example, this year CLAT-2018 is scheduled for 13 May 2018, NLU-Delhi’s All India Law Entrance Test (AILET- 2018) is scheduled for 6 May 2018 and NLU-Shimla’s entrance test will be held on 20 May 2018.

It is clearly unfair to compel an aspiring law student to run across three different exam centres and probably in three different cities in less than a month’s time. Needless to mention, that it would also be economically taxing to bear separate application fees for all three entrance exams.

Above all, it would add to the mental pressure and trauma of appearing for these tests individually, when the same objective can be achieved by one scheme. There appears absolutely no plausible explanation for separate entrance tests conducted by the national law universities of Delhi and Shimla.

Lead by example

On the contrary, NLUs should be the first institutions to comply with settled legal positions and practice. Some argue that since the NLUs have autonomous status, they cannot be compelled to join CLAT. Notwithstanding the autonomous position of NLUs for general administration purposes, ensuring easy access to legal education shall remain their first objective and joining CLAT is undeniably a step in that direction.

Even ethically such defiant attitude of two NLUs cannot be justified. Most NLUs advertise that they prepare their law graduates to be become socially relevant lawyers and promote justice – socially, economically and politically – for all classes of people. However, the conduct of two NLUs doesn’t match their teachings and preaching. Mere promotion of academic teaching soaked in sound principles of law and morality won’t suffice, NLUs should lead by example and facilitate access to education by all, through fair opportunity, at affordable cost and on merit.

Four Solutions

The law and morality debate won’t resolve this issue. A concrete solution is desirable. There are four ways to fix this issue. Firstly, an ideal way would be to indulge in self-correction. Secondly, an indisposed route would be to file a fresh round of litigation on the lines of the Varun Bhagat case, which may bring relief to several students but could also damage the general institutional image.

Thirdly, the Bar Council of India (BCI) which is a body responsible for conferring accreditation on NLUs, could possibly intervene and solicit compliance of CLAT scheme by the two erring NLUs. And lastly, the judiciary may step in on the administrative side. This is because, Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts supervise NLUs as their Chancellors; therefore, they can direct CLAT compliance, exercising their powers as the Chancellors of these universities.

Lest we forget ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. This is case with NLU-Delhi and NLU-Shimla. Be that as it may, let us hope a fresh round of litigation will be avoided by way of self correction or judicious exercise of powers by BCI and the Chancellors of these national law universities.

The writer is Assistant Registrar (Research), Supreme Court of India and Assistant Professor of Law National Law University Odisha, Cuttack.