HC refuses to review order staying NLUD’s decision to reserve 50 per cent seats for Delhi students

The petitioner student, in the review plea, claimed that the video conferencing was “disconnected” when the counsel was to address the court on another aspect. A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad took “strong exception” to the averments made in the review plea particularly when the matter was heard beyond 5 pm, on the day when order was reserved on the interim application seeking stay on NLUD’s decision.

The Delhi High Court Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking review of its order staying the decision of National Law University, Delhi (NLUD) to reserve 50 per cent seats for candidates from the national capital on the claim that the petitioner was not heard properly. The petitioner student, in the review plea, claimed that the video conferencing was “disconnected” when the counsel was to address the court on another aspect.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad took “strong exception” to the averments made in the review plea particularly when the matter was heard beyond 5 pm, on the day when order was reserved on the interim application seeking stay on NLUD’s decision. In the review plea, advocate Nishant Khatri, appearing for petitioner Pia Singgh, alleged that the court while hearing arguments on the interim application has considered the issue of horizontal reservation of 50 per cent for Delhi students in NLUD and he did not get an opportunity to raise the issue of vertical reservation of 22 per cent for OBC and 10 per cent for EWS categories.

The court, while dismissing the review plea being meritless, said during the arguments earlier no efforts were made by the petitioner’s counsel to intervene or raise the issue of vertical reservation. “Hence the submission made by advocate Nishant Khatri that the video conferencing hearing was disconnected is most unacceptable. Even if it is accepted that he was cut short during the arguments, nothing prevented him from moving an application before the order was pronounced on June 29. It took him over two week to file a misconceived review petition,” it said and rejected the review plea being baseless.

The bench noted that the Delhi government had filed an application seeking clarification in the June 29 order and on July 7, the court clarified that the order was passed on horizontal reservation and not on vertical reservation. Thereafter, the NLUD came out with a fresh notice and filed a compliance affidavit on July 13, the court noted and added that all this while, the petitioner was sitting aside without moving an inch.

The high court by its June 29 order had stayed NLUD''s decision to reserve 50 per cent seats for candidates from the national capital, saying the decision was taken by the varsity in haste without acting in accordance with the NLU Act. The high court’s interim order had come on a plea by NLUD students who challenged the reservation decision saying it "strikes at the heart of national character and the standards of excellence" of the university.

The students have filed the petition against the introduction of 50 per cent horizontal reservation at the university for candidates who have cleared their qualifying examinations from an institute in Delhi. The pleas have claimed that the new admission policy, which provides for the reservation and increased intake, was bad in law as it was notified on January 14, 2020, without approval of the governing council, the plenary authority of NLUD.

The Delhi government had argued that the state has adopted a policy to provide reservations for candidates passing the qualifying examination from recognised school, college/institute situated within NCT Delhi and since it provides funds to the NLUD, it can certainly lay down the criteria for admissions. The interest of the Government is in protecting its policy and it is for the NLUD to implement the said policy in accordance with law and therefore, no interference is called for in the present case, it had contended.

The petition has contended that NLUD's decision to introduce the reservation from the academic year 2020-21 was "unconstitutional and illegal"..