Source: newindianexpress.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The role of the Chief Justice of India, judges of the Supreme Court \nand the Chief Justices of the High Court vis-a-vis the administration of\n the National Law Universities (NLUs) is deeply intertwined. The reason \nis simple. The Chief Justice of India is the chancellor of NLUs of \nBangalore and Kolkata. Two Judges of Supreme Court are Chancellors of \nNLUs established in Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur and others NLUs are \nheaded by Chief Justices of High Courts as Chancellors. This excludes \nthe case of NLU Lucknow and NLU Rai, Sonipat whose Chancellors are the \nchief minister of the state and the governor of the state respectively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the role of Chancellor Judges \nsometimes coincides with the issue of judicial propriety. This happens \nwhen such Chancellor Judges discharge administrative function vis-a-vis\n NLUs on one hand and simultaneously also adjudicate over matters \nconcerning these NLUs and their office bearers in the court. Such that, \nwhether the cases filed against the NLUs be at all listed before the \nBench of the Chief Justice in a High Court who is also the Chancellor of\n the same University? Whether the case in the Supreme Court concerning \nmatters of NLU in any respect be at all listed either before the Chief \nJustice of India or any judge who is the Chancellor of any NLU? Should \nthe cases which are filed involving the Vice Chancellors or Registrars \nof NLUs be similarly heard by such Chancellor Judge who is also the \nappointing authority of the Vice Chancellor in most of the NLUs?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legally speaking, the judicial propriety\n may demand that this should not happen. However, facts tell a different\n story. To test this argument, lets us take two cases in which most of \nthe NLUs are or have been parties and a case where Chancellors \nthemselves or the Vice Chancellors and Registrars
\n\u201care parties and the case is directly related to their role in the administration of the University or the cause of action. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Foremost is the case of Varun Bhagat vs \nUnion of India, W.P. No. (Civil) 68 of 2006, which paved the way for the\n \u2018Common Law Admission Test\u2019 (CLAT) when the then Vice Chancellors of \nfirst seven NLUs in the country formed the CLAT body. Interestingly, \nCLAT came into formation when the case was still sub-judice and it \nvirtually rendered the petition infructuous. Be that as it may, CLAT \ncame into existence. But the bench hearing this involved the then CJI \nwho was the Chancellor of two of the respondent NLUs, namely NLSIU, \nBangalore and NUJS, Kolkata.<\/ins><\/p>\n\n\n\n The second important case is of Shamnad \nBasheer vs Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) No. 600 of 2015. \nThis case was filed by the public spirited professor of law praying for \nthe establishment of the \u2018National Testing Agency\u2019 to regulate CLAT. The\n case is still sub-judice. But it is once again being heard by a bench \npresided by one of the judges who is also a serving Chancellor of two \nNLUs. How should we view the impartial role of\n the Chancellor Judges in these cases when they are regular visitors to \nsuch NLUs? This becomes all the more critical when the case is based on \nPIL about the serious administrative problems in NLU involving the role \nof the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor Judge hears it during the day \nin the court and meets the same VC later accepting the hospitality. And \nthe cycle continues. Should it not be viewed at par with any regular \ncase where a Judge should refrain from accepting the hospitality of kind\n from either of the parties to a case before him?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do these cases qualify for the prayer of\n recusal of the Chancellor Judges from such benches? Would it not be \njudicious in the first place for such judges to make a self-disclosure \nof their interest in the administration of NLUs and gracefully recuse \nfrom the bench? This would perhaps set a trend of high judicial \npropriety. In the matters otherwise, two-pronged simple approach can be \nrelied upon by the Chancellor Judges to sound more fair, judicious and \ntransparent in their approach. Firstly,that such cases can be listed \nbefore a bench of other Judges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And secondly, while hearing a case \nrelated to NLUs, the responsibilities of a Chancellor could be delegated\n to another Judge until the case is disposed of and shall maintain a \nreasonable distance from University matters and the Vice Chancellors. \nJudicial propriety would then be better preserved and practiced. \nCrafting the contours of a judicial accountability is an ongoing journey\n and these case studies of NLUs must be seen as a fresh opportunity for \nmore constructive debate that would help judiciary reassure that its \nactions, words, integrity and accountability are all subject to the test\n of the sovereign conscious and the Constitution<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Source: newindianexpress.com The role of the Chief Justice of India, judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":664,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[360],"tags":[817,816,341,797,818,815,176],"class_list":["post-663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-clat","tag-judges","tag-law","tag-legal","tag-national","tag-nlus","tag-tangles","tag-universities"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/663","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=663"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/663\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":665,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/663\/revisions\/665"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/664"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gurukulgalaxy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThe third important case is of the Orissa High Court, Penukanta Ota vs \nState of Odisha, Secretary of Law, Chancellor of National Law University\n Odisha & Others, W P (Civil) No. 9445 of 2018. The case is about \nthe administrative issues in NLU Odisha and was admitted on the basis of\n the Public Interest Litigation. Interestingly, the matter is still \nsub-judice and is regularly being heard by the bench headed by the Chief\n Justice of Orissa. This makes it a very peculiar case of dubious \njudicial propriety where the Chief Justice of the HC regularly presides \nover a matter in which he is also listed as a respondent party and the \ncase is about the administrative problems in the University under his \ndirect control and administrative supervision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n