The Karnataka high court has stayed NLSIU Bangalore‘s 25% domicile reservation in the interim, according to LiveLaw and Bar & Bench.
NLSIU should prepare a new seat matrix without the reservation and the Karnataka government should not notify the NLSIU amendment act, the court held.
However, the stay remained contingent on the court’s final order.
The court reportedly did not make a decision on NLSIU increasing its batch size from 80 to 120.
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.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Para 1.4.10: NLSIU is "unique in every sense", "no comparison of NLSIU with any other institution".
Para 2.7.2: Other NLUs are essentially state universities, their model is not NLSIU but rather Karnataka State Law University. Other NLUs do not share same historic objectives as NLSIU.
www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-379800.pdf
Thus, for example, NUJS and GNLU have CJI as Chancellor but they are state universities. Moreover, the full names are WB NUJS and Gujarat NLU.
They are arguing that the law school exists by itself in isolation and is a stand-alone institute but that doesn't make any sense when you appreciate the fact that NLS does not provide constitutional reservations to OBCs and EWS because the state of Karnataka doesn't make the demand for its state universities to do so. So they want the benefits of Karnataka's reservation policies but want to avoid any regulation on them altogether at the same time. Then what is stopping this "Law School" from removing even the SC/ST reservation and truly becoming the "elitest of the elite"?
The Bar Council has simply executed a power of attorney to this "star alumnus" of NLS, Mr. Banerjee who is now arguing on ridiculous grounds to get rid of the domicile quota. I seriously hope that the Karnataka High Court takes a serious view of this misleading argument while giving its final judgment, but I fear it will not because the arguments from the counsel for the state of KA seemed flimsy, unidimensional and unconvincing. I request the right well-connected people to put this kind of information out in the right domain.
This is very similar to how the NLS counsels are misleading the Supreme and High Courts by saying that NLS is the only law school with a trimester system while NLIU Bhopal clearly still has it.
For the record, I am lawyer who is fully against any kind of domicile reservation which are politically targeted (most of them are), but this slimy self-serving attempt by NLS and its alumni to preserve its own autonomy while attempting to throw other NLUs under the bus needs to be shown for what it truly is.
No one in their right mind is going to admire or respect a law school which claims to be superior by seeking to compete on an unequal playing field.
The alumni of this law school don't seem to have the basic ethical integrity that is required to command respect as truly inspiring professionals. Instead, they want to utilise their first-mover advantage to somehow concentrate more power among themselves. It's time someone calls out this BS for the sake of the rest of the legal education fraternity in India.
www.livelaw.in/news-updates/aspiring-law-students-move-hc-challenging-30-domicile-reservation-in-wbnujs-162593
Let the likes and objections determine how many people stand with Sudhir.
www.livelaw.in/news-updates/aspiring-law-students-move-hc-challenging-30-domicile-reservation-in-wbnujs-162593
Sudhir is making good trouble.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first