Plea Against NLSIU' Admission Test [NLAT 2020] Live-Updates From Jharkhand HC

Adv. Gautam: That will not apply here.

Justice Shankar: What he is saying is that there has to be possibility of conflicting orders in different orders of the HC and the federal structure of the country has to be kept in mind.

Poovayya says that the Jharkhand may choose not to exercise its jurisdiction.

Justice Shankar: What do you say about Article 226 viz. Cause of Action?

Poovayya: I will be true to my gown and say that your lordships have jurisdiction under Article 226. But it is a matter of forum non-convenience.

Sr. Adv. Sajan Poovayya: Similar plea pending in MP HC as well. No notice has been issued upon NLSIU regarding the SC plea.

Tandon: Then the SC ultimately decides it.

Justice Shankar: Any other petitions pending?

Adv. for Union of India: Similar matter pending before SC. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors V. NLSIU & Ors. pending before top court.

Adv. Manoj Tandon now reading out Article 226(2). Can anyone say that there is no Cause of Action in Jharkhand?

The centres of the examination are here too.

Justice Shankar: But what if conflicting orders in High Courts?

Justice Shankar: I am not saying that you may not have a case. You have to satisfy me on jurisdiction. Suppose I take up the NLU Consortium case, how will I take it up in Jharkhand?

Gautam: Cause of action under Article 226(2) 

The petitioner's lawyer is not on screen.

Justice Shankar: You all are young lawyers, how can you exit like this? If you feel like you have difficulty in countering the court's questions, please seek help. I am taking this very leniently. 

Justice Shankar: What if students from each state file writ petitions before respective HCs? What if one HC stays the exam and another HC dismisses it? This has PAN India ramifications.

Bench: Is there a complete deviation which requires students to study a completely different subject? Also Tell us why you have come before Jharkhand.