Karnataka Govt Moves Supreme Court Challenging Karnataka HC Order Striking Down 25% Domicile Reservation At NLSIU

The Karnataka 25% Government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the order of the KarnatakaHigh Court whereby it has struck down the 25 percent horizontal domicile reservation at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) for students of Karnataka, introduced by the state government on April 27. The High Court has on September 29, invalidated the National Law School of India (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Karnataka Act No. 13/2020) in so far as it inserts sub-section (3) of Section 4 into the National Law School of India Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act," "the NLS Act," or "the 1986 Act"). It was held that the impugned amendment, which provides horizontal reservation to an extent of 25% to students of Karnataka, is contrary to the spirit of the NLS Act and that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The SLP filed by the government states that the judgment passed by the high court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside firstly because the Public Interest Litigation filed by two alumni of the National Law School, ought not to have been entertained by the high court in view of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003) 7 SCC 546. Secondly on merits, it is said that the high court has erred in holding the Amendment Act to be invalid on the ground that the said amendment is contrary to the intent and spirit of the Act. The SLP says that a legislation can be invalidated by a writ court only on the grounds of: (a) lack of legislative incompetence; (b) violation of Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision; and (c) manifest arbitrariness. It is submitted "Simply put, there is no fourth ground available to a writ court to strike down legislation in exercise of its powers of judicial review. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has expressly held that the Karnataka State Legislature has the necessary legislative competence to pass the Amendment Act. Having held so, the high court could not have invalidated the Amendment merely because it found that the Amendment alters the scheme of reservation envisaged under Act, as originally enacted in 1986." On the finding of the high court that the impugned amendment Act usurps the powers of the Executive Council of the Law School and is, consequently, contrary to the scheme of the Act and invalid. It said in the plea that "The said finding is fallacious on two counts. Firstly, assuming this finding to be correct, the same is not one of the recognized grounds on which a writ court can strike down a piece of legislation. Secondly, the Executive Council is a creation of the State Legislature under the 1986 Act, and it is respectfully submitted that the high court's findings in this regard tantamount to holding that a decision of an authority created by the State Legislature would supersede and prevail over the very Constitutional authority that created it, namely, the State Legislature." It is added "Once legislative competence is established, the State Legislature is the supreme authority, and it would always be open to the competent Legislature to do as it pleases vis-à-vis an authority created under the statute (provided the action does not offend any Constitutional provision), including curtailing the powers of the or altering the manner in which the authority is to function or exercise its powers." On the finding of the high court that the impugned amendment Act violates Article 14. The court had held that the reservation sought to be introduced for students of Karnataka does not have a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. To which the state government has said it is the position of the State as was mentioned in the statement of objections filed before the high court that the reservation provided by way of the impugned amendment has a direct nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, which is to ensure that the best legal talent, including in the State of Karnataka, is provided with the fullest opportunity to gain an education of the highest standards and pursue career in law, be it in the profession or academia. It is stated "The High Court has failed to consider the true purport of the reservation and has not only disregarded the explanations offered by the State but also the binding judgments of this Hon'ble Court recognizing reservation on the basis of institutional preference/residence as being Constitutionally valid." It is added that the State explained in detail that one of the interests of the State in providing for 25% horizontal reservation to students who have studied in the State is to ensure that a portion of the talent that is produced by the National Law School is retained within the State, in the larger interests of the State's development. Therefore, the impugned Amendment advances the State's interests, a ground on...

Karnataka Govt Moves Supreme Court Challenging Karnataka HC Order Striking Down 25% Domicile Reservation At NLSIU

Mustafa Plumber

Tags