ia filed before delhi high court

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

[CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION] CM No. of 2012 IN LPA 458/2012 in WRIT PETITION [C] NO. 3208 OF 2012 IN THE MATTER OF: Shubham Sinha ……………Appellant VS The Union of India and Ors ……….Respondents AND IN THE MATTER OF: Raghul Sudheesh Associate Editor, ‘Bar and Bench’ # 92/3, Marthahalli, Outer Ring Road, Next to Home Town, Bengaluru-37 . …..Intervening Petitioner INTERVENTION APPLICATION ORDER I RULE X OF CPC READ WITH UNDER SETION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE CODE 1908. TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF DELHI HIGH COURT AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICS OF THE HON’BLE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI. The humble petition of the Intervener/ Applicant above named Intervention Petition seeking a permanent CLAT governing Body

1. The Intervener/applicant is a legal journalist working with a legal news website “Bar

& Bench” based out of Bangalore as Associate Editor. ‘Bar & Bench’ is acomprehensive

news and analysis portal for Indian legal professionals which provides the latest in

news,information, interviews and columns. The applicant is a law graduate and an

alumnus of National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Cochin. The

applicant is involved much in the field of legal journalism and has interviewed many

legal personalities including Supreme Court Judges. The applicant is covering CLAT

2011 and CLAT 2012 extensively for Bar & Bench. The applicant files the intervention

petition with bona fide interest in the larger interest of the student community.

2. The applicant applauds the introduction of CLAT as the common entrance exam of all

the NLUs in the country as a result of a public interest litigation WP (C) No. 68/2006

Varun Bhagat v. Union of India & Others filed before the Supreme Court. Since its

introduction CLAT has been an important instrument to enhance the scope and

popularity of law as a career option. However, with successive editions of CLAT

conducted by various NLUs, certain grave irregularities have been constantly surfacing,

thereby jeopardizing the future of the applicants as well as the potential

prospects of legal education.

3. The petitioner would like to draw the court’s attention towards the basic system that

governs the functioning of CLAT. The exam is conducted by the constituting NLUs on a

rotation basis. Thegoverning body in this regard is called the CLAT committee, the

constitution of which changes every year with the change in the NLU responsible for

conducting the exam. While this system has been responsible for bringing many new

insights into the admission process, this has not really been helpful in maintaining a

consistent standard regarding the pattern and procedures concerning the entrance

exam and the admission process that follows.Due to lack of any set basic guidelines

which are not prone to alterations by the successive CLAT committees, every year the

applicants and their parents are faced with a new admission procedure to deal with.

Here the lack of effective communication among the various organising universities is

also to share the blame. No deliberation as to the response received by the existing

procedure, the identification of the positive or negative aspects etc. is done. The

modifications so carried out by the successive CLAT committees do not reflect any

lessons learnt from previous errors. Similarly, many renovations that are introduced by a

CLAT committee fail to make to the admission process regardless of the positive

response they generated among the students.

A few such instances were seen in the CLAT 2012 this year. Firstly, the system of

generation of a centralized allotment list for the LLM admission process was not

followed this time. The CLAT website instructed the students to apply individually to the

University of their “Choice” with their CLAT score. The centralized allotment lists formed

one of the basic objectives that CLAT, as a common entrance test sought to achieve.

Doing away with this

system, given its efficiency and significance, and reverting back to the hassle of

individual applications to the Universities was a step unwarranted for. On a similar note

stands the system of buffer seats which was introduced in the last edition of CLAT in

2011. Many times, a few students, even after being through the entire admission

process, leave for other colleges, stream etc. Buffer Seats were created to avoid the

wastage of approximately 2-5% seats which go waste in such cases. To counter the

wastage of seats due to this, approximately 5% seats were increased. All the NLUs

agreed that even if the extra students due to the increase decide to stay, they will carry

them forward. This idea received a great response last year. However, notwithstanding

any such factors, this system was done away with in the current edition of CLAT. No

explanations were offered in this regard by the CLAT committee.

4. Essential elements like the syllabus, the admission criteria and the counselling

procedure undergo rigorous modifications. Such inconsistencies in the modus operandi

of CLAT leave any prior advice/directions by seniors, mentors and others concerned of

no accord. Eventually the student finds himself perplexed about how to go about the

prescribed procedures.

In addition, the frequent changes made to the procedures each year are also not

communicated well to the students sometimes. Whenever any new modification to the

system is done, a transparent communication of the change to the other end is not

made. Often such changes are not accompanied by any guidelines to help the students

to tackle the said changes. This further accumulates the confusions for the students.

Besides these, several other irregularities have also been cropping up with every

passing year of CLAT. Instances of irregularities regarding the question paper leak,

inconsistency of the question papers with the prescribed syllabus and the like have

been surfacing every year.

During the second edition of CLAT in 2009, the question paperwas reported as leaked a

few days before the day of the examination. With only few days at hand, major

compromises were made regarding the quality of the newly set paper. It was found that

the questions that finally appeared in the examination were heavily borrowed from two

of the popular CLAT preparation guides.

In the same edition, during the counselling and admission process, a system of vacant

seats was introduced, according to which, the vacant seats available in the NLUs after

the three successive allotment lists had been issued were to be filled through individual

applications to the respective NLUs. However, the disturbing point in this procedure was

that the students who were already enlisted in the previous allotment lists were barred

to apply under these vacant seats. As such, a student who did not feature in the

allotment lists got an unfair chance to secure admission in a higher ranked NLU, while a

student who had been allotted a lower ranked NLU was denied a possible up gradation.

Further, in the fourth edition of CLAT in 2011, the question paper had many of the

answers underlined. In addition, when the rank lists were issued, the ties between the

students were not considered. This led to a lot of confusion as a student initially

happy with his rank of say 90 was gravely disappointed upon learning that it is not a

great All India Rank. This was a source of great mental trauma and hardship for the

students.

In the fifth and latest addition of CLAT, the syllabus guidelines issued on the CLAT

website were grossly disregarded. A large number of questions were based on legal

principles and static GK, both of which were expressly held as not being in the syllabus

in the guidelines. The allotment lists that came up after that were also arbitrary, as the

factors like rank secured by a student and his preference for a particular college were

not conformed to. Subsequently, to make amends, the list was removed from the

website and a new list was put up, without any notification made in this regard.

All these irregularities in the admission process have been instrumental in the formation

of adverse notions about the efficiency of CLAT among the masses. Amongst

increasing efforts to enhance the scope of legal education and make it a diverse

phenomenon, such side effects are really unwarranted.

5. The petitioner would also like to point out that the structure of the examination which

does not seem to effectively gauge then students’ aptitude for legal studies. Rather than

forming the examination in a format that tests the analytical and logical application skills

of the candidate, many times the focus is on the prior knowledge of law. Such a format

enhances the need for prior coaching before the examination. As such the interest of

the children from a rural background who already suffer a backlog regarding the lingual

skills of the other well off urban students, and cannot afford the coaching expenses.

Even when the syllabus guidelines reflected such concerns and expressly stated that

static GK and law based questions would not form a part of the question paper, the

actual question paper showed gross disregard of these guidelines, thus creating further

confusions for the applicant students.

This is not only a source of trouble for the applicants, but also is a major setback to the

diversity initiatives like the IDIA(Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access) program that

has been striving to secure representation for the socially and economically backward

children in law schools under the guidance of Prof. Shamnad Basheer, Ministry of HRD

chair professor, NUJS. As such, the structure of the paper should be determined with

expert deliberations about what the examination seeks to gauge and what should be the

most effective way to determine it. Such criteria should be strictly followed while setting

the paper and should be reflected in the questions so asked. However, as was

from the CLAT 2012 paper, no such steps were taken while conducting the said

examination and the brunt of this ignorance was bore by the students.

6. Another problem that the petitioner would like to drive court’s attention to is that of

counselling. The general procedure of counselling that is employed under CLAT

includes the preferences for colleges that the students are required to fill. On the basis

of these preferences as well as the merit attained by the candidate, the allotment list is

issued. There are three rounds of upgradation after that, to fill up seats which are left by

the students for other colleges or any other reason. Then finally after the fourth

allotment list, the counselling process generally concludes.

7. The problems that arise with this process are many. Firstly, the students are

expected to fill up their preferences before the examination and results. There is a high

probability of the students filling of these choices haphazardly due to lack of awareness

about the rankings of the various NLUs. Some of the students are not even aware of

how the system works and how the preference should be filled. Most of the students fill

up the preferences in the same order as they are listed in the CLAT Brochure which

indicates seniority of the NLUs and not their rankings. Also, as a result of constant

three fold up gradation that subsequently happens, the students are forced to travel

from one university to another till their allotment is finalised after the fourth list. This

gives rise to an unnecessary hassle. A system of online centralised counselling could

be an answer to these problems. This will not only fix the problem of uninformed

choices being made by the students by calling for their preferences after the

results have been declared, but also tackle the menace of travelling from one law

school to another as a result of upgradation. Similar procedure was introduced in the

CLAT 2011;

however, it was limited to that edition of the CLAT and despite a good response, was

not followed in the successive edition in 2012, reverting back to the preference cum

merit system.

8. As such the petitioner would pray the court for directing the formation of a permanent

CLAT body, keeping into consideration the issues that have been so raised before it, so

as to cater to the interests of the students and the sphere of legal education as a

whole.

9. The petitioner would like to suggest a model CLAT Committee which can be

efficiently used as an instrument to tackle the issues raised above. The permanent

committee for CLAT may comprise of eminent legal personalities independent of any

association with the administration of the participating law schools. The committee

may be categorized into four inter-functional wings. The first wing may consist of

academicians responsible for determining the basic elements that the examination

seeks to gauge. It may also be responsible for setting up the syllabus and the criteria for

admission in lines with the above determination. In furtherance of the interests of the

students, free basic study material may be issued by this wing. Also, within a

reasonable period of time, sample papers may be issued to the students to clarify any

doubts regarding the format of the paper. The wing should take into consideration the

diversity of students appearing for the exam and accordingly structure the format so as

to curb the need of prior coaching for the exam. This may be in the interests of the rural

and poor students.

The second wing may deal with issues concerning the assimilation of information. For

this purpose the effective use of the CLAT website can be an asset. Enquires relating to

any aspect of the examination can be answered by this wing, using the website as a

forum for the same. A hotline system should also form a part of this wing to help the

students lacking internet access. The information that this wing may provide can consist

of ranking of the universities, tie breaking criteria and essential guidelines regarding the

counselling procedure. In addition, issues like the publicity of the examination,

enhancement of the availability of the application form by increasing the centres for the

same, etc. can also be handled by this wing. The third wing may be the diversity wing. It

may deal with increasing the diversity in the population of law schools. Sensitization

programs can be run by this wing in consonance with the already running movements in

this regard. A part of the funds of the CLAT committee can be allocated to this wing for

arrangements of scholarships in order to effectuate the aforementioned objectives.

The last wing may deal with the process of declaration of results and counselling. The

proper declaration of results after the tie breaking procedure and allocation of a unique

master rank to each applicant should be managed by this wing. The counselling

procedure should be made of a centralised nature. That may be done by introducing

online counselling system with adequate technical assistance.

10. Alternatively, a statutory body may be constituted by the court as the CLAT

governing body, keeping into the consideration the concerns which require its

attention.

Grounds

1. Functioning of the CLAT committee regarding the admission process to NLUs have

been showing grave inconsistencies in the past. This has been a source of mental

trauma and hardship for the students.

2. There is a lack of fixed structure regarding the admission procedures under the

CLAT. There have been frequent instances showing lack of communication and

transparency between the CLAT committee and the students.

3. The arbitrariness resulting from these irregularities may be instrumental towards

developing a deteriorating trend with respect to CLAT and legal education on the

whole.Therefore it is submitted that it would be beneficial to the student community, if a

permanent CLAT governing body is set up, so as to address the issues raised above.

Prayer

The Petitioner humbly requests the court to: Therefore it is prayed that this intervention

application may be allowed and the intervening applicant may be allowed to submit his

views before this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

Intervener Applicant

P. GEORGE GIRI

Advocate for intervener applicant


[CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]

CM . No. of 2012 in

LPA 458/2012 in WRIT PETITION [C] NO.3208 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shubham Sinha ………Appellant

VS

The Union of India and Ors ……….Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Raghul Sudheesh

Associate Editor, ‘Bar and Bench’

# 92/3, Marthahalli, Outer Ring Road,

Next to Home Town,

Bengaluru-37 …..Intervening Applicant

Intervening Application

PAPER BOOK

P.GEORGE GIRI, Advocate for intervener


[CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION]

CM . No. of 2012 in

LPA 458/2012 in WRIT PETITION [C] NO.3208 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VS



Raghul Sudheesh



Next to Home Town,

Bengaluru-37 ..Intervening Applicant

AFFIDAVIT

I, Raghul Sudheesh, residing at No. 92/3, Marthahalli, Outer Ring Road, Next to Home

Town, Bengaluru- 560037, presently at New Delhi, solemnly affirm and declare as

follows:

1. That I am the deponent herein and the intervening applicant in theabove case and as

such I am well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That I have read over the above said intervening application page

No. to and I have understood the contents therein which are true to the best of my

knowledge and has been drafted on my instructions.

Deponent

Verification:

I, Raghul Sudheesh, legal journalist and Associate Editor of Bar and

Bench, verify that the contents of this application is true and correct to

my knowledge and belief. Solemnly affirmed and signed on this 18th day

of July, 2012 at New Delhi.

Deponent



CM . No. of 2012 in

LPA 458/2012 in WRIT PETITION [C] NO. 3208 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VS



Raghul Sudheesh …..Intervening Applicant

INDEX

S.N. DESCRIPTION COURT FEES PAGE NO

1. NOTICE OF MOTION A-A1

2 URGENT APPLICATION RS. 3/- A2

3 MEMO OF PARTIES A3-B

4 INTERVENTION APPLICATION RS. 3/- 1-12

5 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 13-14

6 VAKALATNAMA RS.3/- 15



CM No. of 2012 in

LPA 458/2012 in WRIT PETITION [C] NO. 3208 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:


VS



Raghul Sudheesh …..Intervening Applicant

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Shubham Sinha

S/o Shri Prabhat Kumar Sinha

Block No.252, Flat No. 6B,

Railway Officers Enclave,

P.K. Road,

New Delhi – 110001 Appellant

VERSUS

1. Union of India,

Ministry of Human Resource

Development

Through its Secretary

4th Floor, A-Wing,

Shastri Bhawan

New Delhi 110 001. Respondent No. 1

2. The Bar Council of India

Through its Chairman

21, Rouse Avenue InstitutionalArea,

Near Bal Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 002 Respondent No. 2

3. The Convenor,

Common Law Admission Test, 2012

National Law University, NH-65,

Nagaur Road,

Mandore, Jodhpur – 342304

(Rajasthan) Respondent No. 3

4. The Registrar,

National Law University,

NH-65, Nagaur Road,

Mandore, Jodhpur – 343304

(Rajasthan) Respondent No. 4

Intervening Applicant:

Raghul Sudheesh



Next to Home Town,

Bengaluru- 560037. …..Intervening Applicant

ia filed before delhi high court

Documents