The Kerala high court on Monday, 15 June, has stayed the second Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2015 allotment by two weeks, further to a writ petition filed by CLAT candidate Anand G Nair, reported LiveLaw.
The petitioner wanted CLAT to publish a full merit list showing all candidates’ marks and colleges, praying according to the order, that “in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be pleased to stay all further allotments to be made on the basis of” CLAT 2015 “till the merit list of candidates” is published in terms of paragraph- 4 in Ext.P2 prospectus till the disposal of this writ petition.
The order by Justice AV Ramakrishna Pillai, as published by LiveLaw, stated:
Issue notice to respondent 1 and 2 by speed post. The 2nd allotment to be made on the basis of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), 2015 shall be kept in abeyance for two weeks.
Since the order was apparently passed on Monday, on Tuesday the CLAT convenor RMLNLU appears to have published a full list of candidates and the colleges allotted to each in the second allocation list that have been ‘locked’ by candidates.
The full merit list was published on Friday, 12 June.
We’ve reached out to RMLNLU for comment.
Another writ petition was filed in the Rajasthan high court last week.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Relief sought was: a full merit list showing all candidates’ marks and colleges
A full merit list showing all candidates' marks was put up on June 12. So the order putting the allotment in abeyance for two weeks couldn't be against this point. Unless the judge was wrongly assisted on facts by the petitioner.
Coming to A full merit list showing all candidates' colleges. Why is this required? All that is required in competitive exams is the publication of full merit list - done on June 12.
The order on the second point will be promptly struck down in the future as it tends to delay the process on an infirm ground. I personally think that the Jaipur writ seeks remedy for a more legally firm question of discrepancy in QP.
You have a careful look, the order doesn't talk of 'paragraph 4 in Ext. P2 prospectus'. Order is only the last para in the report attached above.
The answer according to official answer key is (A). This is wrong
Assertion (A): – An accused person cannot be compelled to be witness against himself.
Reason (R): – An accused person cannot be compelled to give his thumb impression.
Ans1. (A): Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation of A
2. (B): Both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A
3. (C): A is true but R is false
4. (D): A is false but R is true
V.N.Shukla (edited by Prof. M.P. Singh) on Constitution says:
'To be a witness' is not equivalent to 'furnishing evidence' in its widest significance, that is to say, as including not merely making of oral or written statement but also production of documents or giving materials which may be relevant at trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the leading case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, a Bench of the SC consisting of eleven Judges, disagreeing with the interpretation in its earlier case defined the scope of the protection thus:
"It is well established that clause (3) of Article 20 is directed against self-incrimination by the accused person. Self-incrimination must mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of the person giving the information and cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing documents in court which may throw a light on any of the points in the controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge. For example, the accused person may be in possession of a document which is in his writing or which contains his signature or his thumb-impression. The production of such a document, with a view to comparison of the writing or the signature or the impression, is not the statement of an accused person which can be said to be of the nature of a personal testimony."
Hence giving thumb impression or impression of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression 'to be a witness'.
Meaning, a person can be compelled to give his thumb impression...
Fact: Mr. Z is the owner of a plot measuring 50 feet by 80 feet. He constructed a small house at one corner and was using the rest of the land as a cow shed. He had 20 cows and is involved in selling milk to the public. The cow dung and other wastes were openly stored in a small 10 feet by 8 feet tank. This constantly paved the way for bad smell and breeding of mosquitoes. Mrs. Y, his neighbor, constantly complained to X, but in vain.
322
Ans1. (A): Y cannot take any other action against Z.2. (B): Z can do something to prevent the foul smell.3. (C): Y can complain to the police4. (D): Y can sue Z for damages based on the inconvenience caused by Z.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first