•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Patna HC judge says PIL-er has no place to question CNLU Patna for allegedly illegal CLAT 2017 tender

Patna HC judge: No direct interest of petitioner in questioning legality of CLAT tender
Patna HC judge: No direct interest of petitioner in questioning legality of CLAT tender

The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) could not be challenged further in the Patna high court after it dismissed, without hearing, the writ before it on the ground that the petitioner was merely a publicity seeker and was acting as a “proxy” for someone else.

Patna HC judge Ajay Kumar Tripathi, who is a member of the General Council and the Academic Council of CNLU Patna, said that the petitioner had no place to bring a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the legality of the CLAT 2017 tender awarded by CNLU to conduct the exam.

Tripathi ordered:

Since the petitioner does not seem to have a locus or direct interest, despite repeated question being put as to him as to how he is related with such conduct of examination, the present PIL is more a publicity seeking application, rather than raising a bona-fide or significant issue. The Court also perceives that it is a sponsored or proxy litigation.

PIL is dismissed, accordingly.

Tripathi “is keenly involved in the setting up of the Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) at Patna and is presently a member of the General and Academic Council of the University. Justice Tripathi is also a member of Academic Council of National Law School Bangalore and special invitee to BCI Education Committee,” according to the Patna HC’s website.

The case was accepted by the registry on 5 June and the first hearing in it was set for Monday, 10 July when Tripathi ordered it to be dismissed without hearing.

The petitioner Divyanshu Shekhar had alleged in the PIL that CNLU Patna compromised the tender for the conduct of CLAT 2017, by awarding it through a dubious process to an organisation which was not eligible for the tender and which had questionable credibility.

Click to show 9 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.