The first of what are widely expected to be many writ petitions has been filed this morning before the Jharkhand high court at Ranchi on behalf of five Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) aspirants against the new NLSIU Bangalore admissions test.

Judging by prior years’ CLAT debacles (2018 perhaps most infamously), this is likely to be the first in an avalanche of petitions, which will probably be filed all over India and will possibly end up getting clubbed into a single case before the Supreme Court before long.

If a judge does not decide to issue an ex parte order against NLS before that.

We are aware of at least two other writ petitions in the works by CLAT aspirants. We will update this story if we learn of any other cases filed.

The Ranchi petition seeks a quashing of NLSIU’s notice that we had first reported yesterday, announcing its temporary exit from the CLAT and instead offering its own online admissions test on 12 September 2020.

NLIU Bhopal 2015 graduate Shubham Gautam, who is practising before the court, together with advocate Baibhaw Gehlaut filed the petition this morning on behalf of five CLAT aspirants.

The petition claims NLSIU’s notice is:

21. That the withdrawal of the Respondent No. 1 from the CLAT examination (which is to be held on 28/09/2020) violates the rights of the petitioners to have an examination in just and fair manner.

22. That the withdrawal of the Respondent No. 1 after filling of the registration forms by the students for CLAT is violative of the principle of promissory estoppel?

23. That the declaration of new date of examination by the Respondent No. 1 around10 days before the declared date of examination is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical?

24. That the declaration of new pattern of examination by the Respondent No. 1 around 10 days before the declared date of examination is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical

25. That the action of the Respondent No. 1 is against the established precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court for the conduct of fair and just examination?

The primary questions the petition asks of the court are:

(A) Whether the notice dated 03/09/2020 issued by the Respondent No. 1 is violative of clause 15.7 of the bye laws of the Consortium of National law Universities?

(B) Whether the act of the Respondent No. 1 in declaring separate examination without withdrawing from the CLAT consortium is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical?

(C) Whether the act of the Respondent No. 1 in declaring separate examination while being a permanent member of the CLAT consortium of National Law Universities is unlawful and arbitrary?

(D) Whether the withdrawal of the Respondent No. 1 from the CLAT examination (which is to be held on 28/09/2020) violates the rights of the petitioners to have a examination in just and fair manner?

(E) Whether the withdrawal of the Respondent No. 1 after filling of the registration forms by the students for CLAT is violative of the principle of promissory estoppel?

(F) Whether the declaration of new date of examination by the Respondent No. 1 around10 days before the declared date of examination is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical?

(G) Whether the action of the Respondent No. 1 is against the established precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court for the conduct of fair and just examination?