29. From submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and pleadings, following questions arise for consideration:-

(1) Whether the petitioners have locus to file the writ petition?

(2) Whether the admission notification dated 03.09.2020 by respondent No.1 could have been issued only after recommendations to that effect by the Academic Council, which is the statutory authority under the Act, 1986 for admission of the students to the five year integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme 2020- 2021?

(3) Whether the respondent No.1 being founder member of Consortium of National Law Universities, a registered society, is bound by its Bye-Laws and was obliged to admit the students for integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme through CLAT 2020?

(4) Whether online home proctored examination as proposed by notification dated 03.09.2020, lacks transparency, was against the very concept of fair examination and violative of the rights of the students under Article 14 of the Constitution?

(1) Whether the petitioners have locus to file the writ petition?

33. Even though with regard to petitioner No.1, details of his ward has not been given except that petitioner No.1 is a parent of CLAT 2020 student but in view of the credentials of petitioner No.2 as noted above, we are of the view that the writ petition is fully maintainable at his instance. The affidavit in support of the writ petition has been sworn by petitioner No.2. A common rejoinder affidavit has also been sworn by petitioner No.2. The Memorandum of Association of Consortium of National Law Universities, which is a registered society under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 registered on 26.03.2019 contains a list of Initial Members Subscribers of the Consortium in which name of petitioner No.2 was mentioned as Member Subscriber No.1. Petitioner No.2 being Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.1 became the ex-officio Secretary Treasurer of the Society, his details are also mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Memorandum. A person, who has worked as Vice-chancellor of respondent No.1 and was also member of Consortium, which is entrusted to conduct CLAT, he is fully competent to espouse the cause of education by means of the writ petition. We, thus, reject the objection of the respondent that petitioners have no locus to file the writ petition. It is also relevant to notice that alongwith the writ petition a Special Leave Petition (C) No.11059 of 2020 has been listed, which has been filed by five petitioners, who were candidates for CLAT 2020-2021. The admission notice dated 03.09.2020 was challenged by them by means of a Writ Petition (C) No.2454 of 2020 in High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which writ petition was dismissed. Challenging which judgment, they have filed the aforesaid special leave petition.

35. We, thus, are of the view that issues raised have to be decided on merits rejecting the objection of respondent No.1 regarding locus.

(2) Whether the admission notification dated 03.09.2020 by respondent No.1 could have been issued only after recommendations to that effect by the Academic Council, which is the statutory authority under the Act, 1986 for admission of the students to the five year integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme 2020- 2021?

52. The above provisions in the Schedule specifically empower the Academic Council to appoint the committees for admission to the school. Admissions to the school, thus, were contemplated to be under the control of Academic Council and the appointment of committees was with the purpose to monitor and conduct the admission of the school. When the Act was enacted in 1986, no procedure was in place regarding admission and the Statute empowered the Executive Council to appoint committees for admission to the school. By virtue of Clause 14(16) with regard to appointment of committees for admission to the school, the Academic Council was to perform “all such duties and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the provisions of the Act”. Thus, the above statutory provision gave all incidental power to the Academic Council in relation to the admission.

56. When the Academic Council has been given power of control, general regulations and is responsible for maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination of the school, its one of the functions, undoubtedly is to regulate the admission of students. Reading of Section 11 with Section 18 and clause 14 of the Schedule clearly provides for role of Academic Council in the admission of students.

59. The authorities of the University exercise powers and functions as entrusted to them in the Statute. This Court in Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132 while considering the provisions of Marathwada University Act, 1974, the power of Vice-Chancellor and those of the Executive Council held that when a Statute prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body. In paragraph 20, following was laid down by this Court:-

“20. Counsel for the appellant argued that the express power of the Vice-Chancellor to regulate the work and conduct of officers of the University implies as well, the power to take disciplinary action against officers. We are unable to agree with this contention. Firstly, the power to regulate the work and conduct of officers cannot include the power to take disciplinary action for their removal. Secondly, the Act confers power to appoint officers on the Executive Council and it generally includes the power to remove. This power is located under Section 24(1) (xxix) of the Act. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the Vice Chancellor can exercise that power which is conferred on the Executive Council. It is a settled principle that when the Act prescribes a particular body to exercise a power it must be exercised only by that body. It cannot be exercised by others unless it is delegated……………………”

62. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that respondent No. 1 was required by the Statute to obtain recommendation of Academic Council before proceeding to hold NLAT by issuing admission notification dated 03.09.2020. We, thus, in view of the forgoing discussions, hold that admission notification dated 03.09.2020 issued by respondent No.1 could not have been issued without obtaining the recommendation to this effect by the Academic Council. Admission notification dated 03.09.2020 having been issued without recommendation of Academic Council is not in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1986 and is unsustainable.

QUESTION NO.3 Whether the respondent No.1 being founder member of Consortium of National Law Universities, a registered society, is bound by its Bye-Laws and was obliged to admit the students for integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme through CLAT 2020?

69. Thousands of the students who aspire to have a career in law look forward to the CLAT as a prestigious test and CLAT has proved its usefulness and utility in this country. Students look forward to the Consortium for providing correct and fair assessment of the merits of the students. The bye-laws under which members are required to admit the students in their law universities on the basis of the CLAT for UG and PG law courses are binding on the members. Bye-Laws although are non-statutory but they have been framed with the aim and object to be followed by its members.

70. Even though obligations on members of Consortium under the Bye-Laws are not statutory obligations but those obligations are binding on the members. All members occupying significant and important status have to conduct in fair and reasonable manner to fulfill the aspirations of thousands of students who look on these National Law Universities as institutions of higher learning, personality and career builders. Further the statutes under which National Law Universities have been established cast public duties on these NLUs to function in a fair, reasonable and transparent manner. These institutions of higher learning are looked by society and students with respect and great Trust. All NLUs have to conduct themselves in a manner which fulfills the cause of education and maintain the trust reposed on them.

81. It is true that respondent No.1 University follows a unique system of Trimester, each semester has 70 teaching days per three months term. The first Trimester as per resolution of academic council was to begin on 01.07.2020 and was to end till 30th September,2020. This period of three months is not available for respondent No.1 to start the first semester. The entire country is struggling with Pandemic Covid-19 from March 2020. Loss in the academic year is for all Universities in the Country. The Academic Calendar of each University stood disrupted by Covid-19. None of the Universities have declared the year as a ‘zero year’.

82. The University Grants Commission being aware of the consequences of Covid-19 Pandemic has issued guidelines on the examination in the Academic Calendar.

86. We are not persuaded to accept the submission that “Doctrine of Necessity” was applicable in the fact situation of the ongoing pandemic. As noted above, UGC in its guidelines dated 29.04.2020 has already asked all the Universities to modify their academic calendar for the academic year 2020-21. The UGC being the body to maintain standard of education in the entire country and having contemplated for suitable amending the academic year, “Doctrine of Necessity” does not arise. We thus conclude that being members of the Consortium respondent No.1 ought not to have proceeded with holding a separate test namely “NLAT” nor the academic year 2020-21 be required to be declared as “zero-year” even if the course starts in the mid of October, 2020.

(4) Whether online home proctored examination as proposed by notification dated 03.09.2020, lacks transparency, was against the very concept of fair examination and violative of the rights of the students under Article 14 of the Constitution?

92. We thus find substance in the submissions of the petitioner that permitting of home based online test could not have ensured transparency, fairness and integrity of the examination especially when the test was to be conducted for entrance into a premier Law University of the country.

93. We may notice another submission of the petitioners in this regard. Petitioners’ case is that due to a short period of notice to apply and due to technological requirement, a large number of students especially belonging to marginalised sections of the society were unable to apply within the time allowed by NLAT. The requirement of fulfilling technological support as envisaged by NLAT as noticed above could not have easily been procured by a large number of students.

94. In the proceeding of the faculty meeting dated 06.08.2020 brought on record by the respondent No.1 along with his counter affidavit as Annexure-R-1/10, it has been mentioned that “NSLIU is the first preference for more than 60 percent of CLAT applicants”. About 69,000 students have registered for CLAT-2020. 60 percent of 69,000 comes to 41,400. The registration into NLAT being only 24,603 out of which only 23,225 could appear makes it clear that a large number of students who could have wanted to apply for admission in respondent No.1 University could not even apply due to shortage of time and technical requirement insisted by respondent No.1 University. The above figures fully support the submissions of the petitioner that a large section of the students especially belonging to marginalised sections of the society were denied the opportunity to appear in the examination.

95. We thus conclude that home based online examination as proposed by the respondent No.1 University for NLAT 2020-21 could not be held to be a test which was able to maintain transparency and integrity of the examination. The short notice and technological requirements insisted by the University deprived a large number of students to participate in the test violating their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Question no.5 Whether NLAT held on 12.09.2020 with re-test on 14.09.2020 was marred by malpractices and deserves to be set aside.

102. After having considered the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that for the present case, it is not necessary for this court to enter into various materials referred to by the petitioners and the reports and to decide as to whether malpractices were actually adopted in the examination or not. Respondent No.1 being premier University, we have no doubt that it must have taken all necessary precautions to avoid any malpractices and cheating in the examination.

103. As noted above, the University has also filed a complaint of Cyber Crime which may be inquired in accordance with law. We need not express any opinion in this proceeding under Article 32 with regard to the aspect of malpractices in the test conducted on 12.09.2020 and 14.09.2020 which is essentially a matter of scrutiny of facts and evidence.

104. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Admission notification dated 03.09.2020 issued by respondent No.1 was not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside.

105. The CLAT examination is already fixed for 28.09.2020 which needs to be conducted on the said date without fail after following all necessary protocols for safety and health of the students and after following the Standard Operating Procedures issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and Ministry of Human Resource Development(MHRD).

108. In result of the foregoing discussion, we allow the writ petition in the following manner:

(I) The notice for admission to the five year integrated B.A.LL.B(Hons.) programme 2020-21 dated 03.09.2020 Annexure -P 14 as well as Press Release on NLSIU admission 2020-21 dated 04.09.2020 Annexure-P 15 are quashed.

(II) The respondent No.3 is directed to conduct the CLAT-2020 examination on 28.09.2020 taking all precautions and care for health of the students after following the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD).

(III) The respondent No.3 shall also ensure that the entire process of declaration of the result be completed as early as possible to enable the respondent No.1 and other National Law Universities to start their course by the mid of October-2020.

(IV) The respondent No.1 shall also complete the admission of B.A.LL.B(Hons.) programme 2020-21 on the basis of the result of CLAT-2020.

(V) The respondent No.3 may take decision at an early date restoring the status of respondent No.2 as the Secretary-Treasurer of the Consortium as well as restoring the Secretariat of the Consortium as to NLSIU, keeping in mind that scheduled exam of CLAT-2020 on 28.09.2020 is not hampered in any manner.