{"id":250014,"date":"2009-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-30T22:17:52","modified_gmt":"2017-08-30T16:47:52","slug":"lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: B.S.Patil<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\n \n\nDATED THIS THE 10TH DAY or SEPTEMBER. 2009 V. \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUST:c}: B.S. PATI_I_...L : ' \n\nWRIT PETITION No.18534~\/201\u00a79    \"\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nLGLAKSHA,\n\nS\/O. LATE KRANGA,\n\nAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, . \nREPRESENTED AS GUARDIAN TO \nDAUGHTER, PREETHL\n\nSINCE MINOR,  H\nR\/AT. NG304, ANMGL RESRIVDENCY;\nT.V. RAMANAPA1   T \nKODAILBAILE, H   . .. \u00ab   \nMANGALOREWEYB 003.       PETITIONER\n\n[BY SR1. RAVIVAFl\\--'LA  ::SR. eGUN\"SSL}-  .  A \nAND:\n\n1. THE CONVENER, ._  \nCOMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST,\n{cI,A'I'--2009} ~ V\n\n~  NALS3AR.UNIVERSIT'Y  LAW,\n\"  BYITS REGISTRAR,\n A ,3\u00bb:-76-1_, BARKATPURA,\n'   ~:-5_0_S 027.\n.ANDHRA~PRADESH-\n\n2. NATIONAL LAW SHOOL OF\n, INDIA..[}N{VERSI'1\"Y{NLSUI).\n  REP. BY.I'IS REGISTRAR,\n= _ BANc\u00bbAI,0RE A 560 242,\n ATAKA.\n\n  \"NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF' ADVANCED\n LEGAL STUDIES {NUALS}. KOCHI,\n\n\n\nREP. BY ITS REGSITRAR.\nKALLOR, KOCHI ~\u00ab 682 017.\nKERALA.\n\nGUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY.\nGANDHINAGAR,\n\nREP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,\n\n153-4, GIDC ELECTRONICS ESTATE SECTOR--26.\nGANDHINAGAR -- 382 028\n\nGUJARAT.\n\nKUM. SOUMYA NETRA MONDAL, .  ~\nADMIT CARD NO.KLO1UO5508, ,  \nIST YEAR LAW STUDENT (FIVE  COURSE),\n\nSELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED C_AS~'ITE QUOTA.' \nNATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OE INDIAN'  ' '-.\n\nUNIVERSITY, NAGAREHAV1 A 560 02,42...' \nBANGALORE. . '   ' \n\nSRI PREM K AYYATHU  I _\nADMIT CARD NO.MMO1Uo852'6,_\n\n15? YEAR LAW STUDENT {FEVEYEAR COURSE).   I\n\nSELECTED UNDER' SCHEDUI,.E.D\" CAS'1\"E.QIIOTA,\nNAIIONAL 1.AWS(2}iO_OLIVOF I'NDIAA:.  \nUN1vERSI'DI';\"NASA::\u00a73IDxV'1._;.._560 V0242,  '\nEANGAIDREV.     \n\nKUM,ANUPzxI.\u00a2AARIGALA, ' ~ . u \"\n\nADM1': CARD NO.';N.E)_O3U10.252. .\n\n151' YEAR LAW 'STUDEN'1'I{FI\\iEi'. YEAR COURSE),\nSELECTED UNDER Sc,HEDU_LED' CASTE QUOTA,\nNA'I'IONAL'L_AVJ SCHOOL OE INDIAN\nUNIVERSITY';-ANACAARESHAVI --* 550 242,\nBANGALORE. '- '\n\nKU'1VI..Ai?}&RA,V'I' IITA \n\n. 'ADMITV  NONSOIUOOS27.\n L sT\"I*EAE._ LAW' STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE),\n . SELECTED.VUI~\u00bbIDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,\n\n'NATIONAL I'AW\u00a3=SCHOOL OF INDIAN\nUIIIvERSI1fg,j'..NAOAREHAvI -- 550 0242,\nBANGALORE.\n\n  SR1 PROJWALADIIYA GOPALKRISHNA,\n\n\u00bb ADMIT CARD NO.BAo1U00327,\n\n'  EST  LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE),\nSELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,\n\nNATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN\n\n- \" UNIVERSITY,\n\nNAGARBHAVI -- 560 242, BANGALORE.\n\n\n\n10.\n\n11.\n\n12.\n\n13.\n\n14.\n\nKUIVEPREETI RAJORIA.\n\nADMIT CARD NO.-JDO 1U0469 1,\nI3? YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)\n\nSELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA.\n\nNATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN\nUNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI -- 560 242.\nBANGALORE.\n\nSRI SUVESH KUMAR.\nADMIT CARD NO.ND03UO9856, I \n\nI51\" YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)'  \nSELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,\n\nNATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN\nUNIVERSITY. NAGARBHAVI --~ 5602.42.\nBANGALORE. . \n\nKUIVLRICHA SARASWATI \" - _ \nADMIT CARD NO.P'I01U127..-'39!  2  \n157' YEAR LAW STUDENT' {FIVE YELAR.COU.RSVE)' A.\n\nSELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTTE QUEOTA. I\n\nNATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OFINDIAN . .\nUNIVERSITY, NAGARBIIAvIw- SS0 242, \nBANGALORE. J   i  .4 \n\nSR1 PRIYAD\u00a7A'R;3V'H.IV  .:\nADMIT CARDVNO.c_-:N01U03534'.~ I  2\n\n181\" YEAR LAW' STGBENT' :.FIviE YEAR COURSE)\n\nSELECTED IJNIJER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA.\n\nNA'FIG.NAL_ LAW'SCH._OOL 0}? INDIAN\nUNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI :..56o__242,\nBANGALORE '   \n\n'SR1 AMITANANAD; _ V. ._ ~\nAD1\\iIT CARD NO .ELo2U0e521,\n13?  LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)\n\n' . SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,\n\n. 'IVIA'1'IOI\u00a7IAI..L'..43IW'--SCE~iOOLOF INDIAN\n\n'Ul\\IIV'ERSITY. VLEIAGARBHAVI -- 560 242,\n\nA '~ .BA1fJGALO'RE_ , I . --'\n\nI5.\n\nKUM.SWATI_ C'cj:EAANDRA.\nADMIT  NO.KL02UlO205,\n1-ST YEAR LAW STUDENT (FIVE YEAR COURSE)\n\n .SELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,\n\n \u00bb NA'I'I.ONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN\n\n  ENIVERSIIY, NAGAREHAVI -- 560 242.\n\n EUMPRAVEENA RAJASEKAR.\n\nADMIT CARD NOBAO I UO0726.\n\n\n\n1ST YEAR LAW STUDENT {FIVE YEAR COURSE)\nSELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE QUOTA,\nNATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN\nUNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI \u00ab\u00ab~ 560 242,\nBANGALORE.\n\n17. SM SOURAV MANOHAR SARDAR.\n\nADMIT CARD NO.KLo2Uo6432,\n\nEST YEAR LAW STUDENT [FIVE COURSE) .-\nSELECTED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTE 'Q'U~OTA, \nNATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIAN   1. 2\nUN1vERS1TY,NAGARBHAvI -- 560 242,  i \n\nBANGALORE.  _ A    A\n\n(BY M\/S. GURURAJ 3: ASSTS. ADV. RORR1-1;\nSR1. UDAYA HOLLA. SR. COUNSEL \"\n\nFOR SRLVIVEK HOLLA, ADv.;.i~iOR R-2?\" -.  _\nSR1. ADITYA SONDR1, ADV. FQR._R--5.' 6, S, 9. 10, 12516;\nR-4 SD.)  ~ - r  1  I \n.' ::s;i:a= . I\n\nTHIS WRIT is FILED DNDER'ARri'iCi,ES 226 ax 227 OF\nTHE CONS'IiTDTiO'i-.r.__ VOE--'i;NDLAV----..RRAy1NIG\" ._'1'0__ QUASI-I THE IMPUONED\nSECOND PROW.SIO.1\\\u00a7(\\L IIST  'SELi'{?CTED CANDIDATES FOR\nTNDIVIDUAIQ   PUBLISHED BY THE 15'?\nRESPONDEfNT._ONLY\"'~.iR.V_:SO'EAR*--..AS-ALLOTINO TI-IE SEAT \"DO THE\nPERTTONERADATJGRTER' .TRE_?w+\"'RESPONDENT GUJARAT NADONAL\nLAW UN1vERiS'D\ufb02 OANDHDIAGAR AT SL. NO.3, IN THE SCHEDULED\n\nCASTE CATEGORY' ATVPAGE 4 TO 9 IS CONCERNED AND Eire.\n\nV \"'TF11SA\"ii*ETiTiON HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS\n\nION :3'1\".eS.29o9.;\"COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE\n\nCOEJRT__MADE~1f'OLLO\\RHNG:\u00bb\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    I Petitioner is the father of the minor girl, Preethi. He has<\/p>\n
 __ “e\ufb01letli this writ petition Seeking a direction to respondentsml & 2<\/p>\n
I’ to give admission to his daughter to the Undergraduate<\/p>\n
different National Law Universities in the country after<\/p>\n
completing her 10+2 exams.\n<\/p>\n
4. It is the case of the petitioner that his da14ghterl’hlavirigl U’<\/p>\n
evinced interest to pursue the law coursein the 2l?*’i’eresporiL*leri.t 0<\/p>\n
University, took CLAT \u00ab-~ 2009 under reserved <\/p>\n
preference to the 2″” respondent~University  .second’U<\/p>\n
preference to the 15* p_ respondlen_t-‘Univers*ityV._iA arid third
\npreference to the 3″‘  ‘On 15.06.2009,
\nthe 1st respondent.Vpublishedlthev in which
\nthe daughter of   rank in the merit
\nlist for General     in the merit list for
\nScheduled on her ranking in the
\nSchedu1ed”Caste  “151 respondent allotted a seat in<\/p>\n
the 3″? respolnd.ent\u00abe~iNa’tiona1 University of Advanced Legal<\/p>\n
 (NUALS}, Koehi’,lvKerala, under the quota reserved for<\/p>\n
Icategoiy. As the daughter of the petitioner did<\/p>\n
notl’hle1ong.ltop_ ‘the communities classified by the Kerala<\/p>\n
 ‘Government as Scheduled Caste for the purpose of admission<\/p>\n
 _  professional conrses she was not given admission under the<\/p>\n
 _”:Scheduled Caste quota in the 3″‘ respondent~ University.<\/p>\n
” K<\/p>\n
University. He has placed strong reliance On the judgments of<\/p>\n
the Apex Court in 1990 (3) sec 130 (MARRI <\/p>\n
SHEKHAR mo Vs. DEAN. SETH G.s.:vmmcAL ee.L_LEOE _.__v&..<\/p>\n
OTHERS} and 1994 (5) sec 244 (ACTION  on _ <\/p>\n
ISSUE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE To :sCHi\u00a7D1?\u00a3EB’1 <\/p>\n
SCHEDULED TRIBES IN THE STATE  <\/p>\n
ANOTHER vs. UNION OF  ANi)TI\u00a3ER];’_: d’:~ieiirurmer V’<\/p>\n
contends that as the 2″?srespond’entfUniversit\u00a7}is established
\nby the State Legislature undei*’a”St.ate eannot claim the<\/p>\n
status of a nationai’ieVe1i;nstitution;'{f,__ ‘ “<\/p>\n
\n
6. Draurinig  Court to Items 62, 63, 64,
\n65 &    to the Constitution, he
\nsubmits thateit is  which has to declare the<\/p>\n
status o_f_an In’stitutio.n as one of national importance. He also<\/p>\n
 “contends any attempt made to affect the rights of persons<\/p>\n
 will be hit by Article 245<\/a> of the Constitution<\/p>\n
as th.e'”$tate’viregislature cannot make any law which has got<\/p>\n
 _ tezfztraterifitox\ufb01iai jurisdiction. In this regard, he has relied on the<\/p>\n
  _=;\u00a7;zdgr’:1ents in A.I.R. 1960 s.(:. 1080 (KAVALAPPARA<\/p>\n
  KOCHUNI @ MOOPIL NAYAR. Vs. STATES OF<\/p>\n
” & KERALA}. 1993 (2) sec 130 [R.S.D.V.FINANCE co.<\/p>\n
_ 10 ALLAH;\n<\/p>\n
PVT. LTD. Vs. SHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD”) 1994 (5)<\/p>\n
SCC 459 (SHRIKANT Bi-IALCHANDRA KARULKAR 8: OTHERS Vs.<\/p>\n
STATE OF GUJARAT 8: ANOTHER).\n<\/p>\n
7. Sri. Ravivarrna Kumar, has also drawn the _<\/p>\n
the Court to the Emblems and Names [Preven.–tion.::Improper w.<\/p>\n
Use) Act, 1950 to contend that tl1_ere:…ipsz fl<\/p>\n
improper use of certain emblems andlnarnes andllrno person<\/p>\n
shall use or continue to use  _purp’os_ei’of any trade,
\nbusiness, calling or profession, emblem specified
\nin the Schedule by the Central   of such other<\/p>\n
Offices of the Governr:1ent._asa rnay”be’prescrlbed. He, therefore<\/p>\n
contends that caiinot name the 2nd respondent
\ninstitution’ as ‘nationalllexlkel __ institution.<\/p>\n
8. Sriv.Uda’ya llriolla,  Senior Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
“the 2:?’repspondentel\ufb01ational Law School contends that the 21″<\/p>\n
 ‘national level institution. He invites the<\/p>\n
attention of’th_e..9Court to the preamble to the Statute which<\/p>\n
 lestablislieslthe 2*” respondent~University namely the National<\/p>\n
   School of India Act, 1986 [Karnataka Act No.22\/1986), to<\/p>\n
‘nliigiililght the fact that it was the Bar Council of India Trust<\/p>\n
VIIIIII  _.\n<\/p>\n
which was instrumental in establishing the 2nd respondent-
\nUniversity to carry out its objects of establishing, maintaining<\/p>\n
and running a model law college in India. With this vobjejct.._in<\/p>\n
mind, a society by name ‘National Law School of  .<\/p>\n
was registered under the Karnataka Societies\ufb01egistration  <\/p>\n
1960 {Karnataka Act No. 17\/1960) with anintention”to”deyfelcfi<\/p>\n
teaching and research institute’  higher it <\/p>\n
was the National Law School of  Society  Vijequested
\nthe State Government to ilational  School of
\nIndia University on the lines’   to enable it to<\/p>\n
carry out its objectland fuginctionss  with this object,<\/p>\n
to enconv1″age._the hes:-tab1ishmcnt”reeof S such a national level<\/p>\n
institution in the  Wolfe-iiarnataka, the State Legislature<\/p>\n
established lthe  enacting the law. He takes me<\/p>\n
…,.throu.gh. the Consti-tu_tion of the General Council and as also<\/p>\n
 ‘Executive,:Conncil of the 2″” respondentmliniversity and<\/p>\n
ernphhasizesllltlive  that there is hardly any State Control over<\/p>\n
the 253’ resVt>ondent–University which has been conceived by the<\/p>\n
H ‘S   Council of India Trust as a National Level Institution. It is<\/p>\n
further contention that the Governing Council of the 2nd<\/p>\n
lmriesnondent — University has framed Regulations providing<\/p>\n
 EV<\/p>\n
M14.\n<\/p>\n
as it is oniy an enabling provision. He places reliance on the<\/p>\n
judgments in AIR 1963 so 649 {M.R.BALAJI 8: oriigitsvs.<\/p>\n
STATE 01? MYSORE 8: OTHERS) and 2003 (9) scc;29’4;<\/p>\n
or INDIA Vs. R.RAJESI-IWARAN & ANQIHER)  this, <\/p>\n
connection. He also contends that<\/p>\n
statutory authorities including the respon’dent~LlniversitieslhasF9<\/p>\n
got the power to choose the  from”  adndissions
\nhave to be made as long) asxit isxnoth  tinrevasonable.
\nIn support of this contention;   judgment in
\n1939 (2) sec 145.  UNIVERSITY sz
\nANOTHER] and  :29?’—“(o:\u00a7;y.cHANoHALA Vs. STATE<\/p>\n
or MYso)z)=;sv3;”‘of_i*i1is:3s).   ”\n<\/p>\n
10.  reference~to'<t:he.:r.atio laid down in 1990 (3) SCC<\/p>\n
130  s~:~iEKHAR mo vs. DEAN, SETH<\/p>\n
 OTHERS), he places reliance on the<\/p>\n
V"1_)ud.gs;ent._et ';;h.e"Apex Court in (2005) 3 sec 1 [S.PUSHPA &<\/p>\n
orinzies Vs.–".$,t\\kAeuANMUGAvELU & OTHERS) and urges that<\/p>\n
 [the proposition of law is explained in this case which helps his<\/p>\n
– _ V ‘ ‘tcontentions.\n<\/p>\n
\n
W15W<\/p>\n
’11. Referring to the conduct of the petitioner in challenging<\/p>\n
the process of selection and admission adopted by the
\nrespondent–~UniVersity, Sn’ Udaya Holla draws support from<\/p>\n
the following judglnentsi i.e. AIR 1986 SC 1043 {OM <\/p>\n
SHUKLA Vs. AK]-IILESH KUMAR SHUKLA sz OTHER.S),’4’_2t):Oi’2_~ {2}<\/p>\n
sec 615 (SUNEETA. AGGARWAL Vs. STATE op? Airs. _i>rAN.’A* 5,4; <\/p>\n
OTHERS}, 1995 (3) sec 486 {MADANLALEI ro1fHE_1\u00a7s7vs.V’s*r’A’rie<\/p>\n
or J & K AND omens) and contendsthat tp\u00e9tificxier <\/p>\n
permitted to chailenge the se1ecti:o’nV_pmade .of’resp:on.dents’5-5 to” V<\/p>\n
17 and the non\u00ab~se1ection’__of his pAd;a=.ighterpAfor thev.cou1\u00a7*se in the
\n2nd respondent-University”  the process of<\/p>\n
selection without_e’raising”‘ obj.ectioVn,.V:.AV'”=uArgt:iing on the<\/p>\n
judgment of;-he’.-V’ the case of SUB!-[ASH CHANDRA
\n& ANOTHER  net\ufb02t’ sire-_o1″u)1NATE SERVICES SELECTION<\/p>\n
BoAR1\u00a7a’az_o’r1\u00bbi12;Rs;”sLP’V'{civu} No.24327\/2005 disposed of on<\/p>\n
 .  $r:ip_UdayvamI\u00ab-iolla contends that a Bench consisting<\/p>\n
of   of the Supreme Court in Pushpa’s<\/p>\n
it  case;-..hax(i11g_plaid down the law, the judgment rendered by a<\/p>\n
x””‘\u00ab.__VBench consisting of two Hon’b1e Judges of the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
it   rnot have dissented from the ratio laid down by the<\/p>\n
  Bench. He further submits that in paragraph~46 of<\/p>\n
LLLLJIA 16 W
\nSubhash Cha.ndra’s case it is held that Pushpa’s case can be<\/p>\n
an obiter and therefore even if the law iaid down in Pushpa’s<\/p>\n
case is taken as an obiter then also it is binding on thiusrCourt.<\/p>\n
It is his further contention that in Subhash Ch\u00a2_;r’iitir’\u00a2.1_~’s:%_<\/p>\n
reliance placed on the Constitution Bench   .e <\/p>\n
1 sec 3.94 (.E.V.CH1NNAIAH vs. s1\u00a7aTE:,ors* .a,P;_&
\nis not apposite. ‘ i i<\/p>\n
12. Sri.Aditya Sondhi, Ieameid’-,v:_C–ounse1~:tat)pearing for
\nrespondents–5 to 17 contends that  institutions which
\nhave All India 1evel._examinati_o–ns’ also r511ov;4 I.\u00bb\u00a7;iie same practice
\nof recognising t3_t1e’L_\u00e9.\u00bba_tuts:’–of  “Caste\/ Scheduled Tribe
\nacross the    of reservation to such
\ninstitutions. “He  “examinations conducted by the<\/p>\n
UPSC_aI1d the 1fecr*uitrIi’ent’:rnade thereof and the process of<\/p>\n
 “seiecit-io’ni.A’rnade to AII'””India Institute of Medical Sciences to<\/p>\n
  ~ \u00e9contvention. He also contends that the 2″”<\/p>\n
rest)ondent}U’n.i’x;ersity has no ‘State’ character. Placing<\/p>\n
 .  ‘:,e1iance*on’:.the judgment in AIR 2994 SC 1861 {State of Tamil<\/p>\n
   Others Vs. S.V.Bratheeb (Minor) 8: Others) he<\/p>\n
-17.”\n<\/p>\n
contends that different and higher standards can be prescribed<\/p>\n
by the State for the purpose of attracting better talent.<\/p>\n
13. He has filed a memo along with caste certi\ufb01cate_s~l._of<\/p>\n
proposed respondents 65, 9, 13, 14 & 16 to <\/p>\n
castes are recognized as Scheduled Cas_te in.”the-lfresidential”‘<\/p>\n
Order insofar as Karnataka State is eoncernedfithoulgh  a:-be<\/p>\n
not of Karnataka origin. He has’iVf’u.tftherllexpressed *<\/p>\n
anxiety over the fate of the students’ who haveilnlow sought to<\/p>\n
be irnpleaded and whoseA–.._selection:~  “s_ought to be challenged <\/p>\n
by way of amendment of theVl)_\\w’Ifit’ll\u00a7ie’titiE5i3,.l V pleads equity for<\/p>\n
them and eontenlcislhlthatg   their part these<\/p>\n
students wholA”ar_e  to the course and are
\npursuing their  to such hardship. in support of<\/p>\n
the gr0unds’l”of_f equity pleaded by him for the admitted<\/p>\n
 has brought to the notice of the Court the<\/p>\n
S ‘follojwiiigvi aspects_: 35,<\/p>\n
S’  v_  the 2nd respondent — University has been<\/p>\n
  following this policy of extending reservation to<\/p>\n
S. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates
\nall over the country for the last 22 years;<\/p>\n
W18-\n<\/p>\n
(ii) There is no Inis–representation by the students
\nand that they are selected purely based on’~-their<\/p>\n
merit;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Their selection is being now cha1leng_ed.’by*VV_’ixfay _<\/p>\n
amendment to the Writ Petition;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) From Tm July 2009, allithese .sttidents’l:hja.y:e*-beer:<\/p>\n
prosecuting their studies. infthe 2’1*’~d_ respor1\u00bbd’entQ{<\/p>\n
University. K    _
\n(V) Even in Marri Chdnti’rashekar”‘AR\u00a71o’s case at
\nparagraph 24.,’ the Supreme ‘~-Courtt has taken note<\/p>\n
of equity and”\u00ab\u00abjtistic.e i:1’to”eofnsi’d.eration to protect<\/p>\n
the interest of
\nHe also   llongihevljudgihent of the Punjab
\nand Haryana   2:902 P 8: H 103 (DEPAK
\n vs.  U_N_1VERSI’I’Y, KURUKSI-IETRA 3:\n<\/p>\n
OTHERS} on the  equity.\n<\/p>\n
 14. pp 2Raghavendra,: another Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
   17 has adopted the arguments advanced by<\/p>\n
the Senioi”  Sri.Udaya Holla and the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
‘ll _ SI’i.Ad’hitya S-ondhi.\n<\/p>\n
it  it “Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on<\/p>\n
‘~Tcar’eful perusal of the entire materials on record, the points<\/p>\n
” fall for consideration in this case are:<\/p>\n
M19-\n<\/p>\n
i) Whether respondents~1 8: 2 were justified_..__in
\nextending the benefit of reservation for SchednJ_ed._V_
\nCaste and Scheduled Tribe candidates of..d,ii’ferentr~ <\/p>\n
States while making admission to the   ‘<\/p>\n
course for the academic year 2009_~iO.–2=1d
\nrespondent–University?  wor<is.i5vhether"
\nthe candidates who had the  of
\nCaste and Scheduled T\ufb01be  'Statesa."other_V_tha:i'1 V
\nKarnataka can Cl8iIi"1"'–'_ x\ufb011\u20ac   a
\nScheduled Caste or Sceh.ed'uled'.T1L'ribe'in the State of
\nKarnataka fo'rA..4_ajdmis_sio\u00a7ri. V1"to.._ the e . Zed respondent-<\/p>\n
University?\n<\/p>\n
ii) Whetliertttie 296 res-n’on’dent:_%llniirersity was right
\n  init-gfnsing”adniission to the petitioner
\nthotugihlshe iseie\ufb01g\u00e9a Scheduled Caste as per<\/p>\n
 tttt ‘Vtti’e.:iPresi:tf1Ver1tia1 1950 in relation to
\nV’ Kama\u00a3a:i\u00a7%a—- ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
iii}  adrtiilssions of respondents–5 to 17 is<\/p>\n
S ‘  liable”to_V be cancelled?\n<\/p>\n
 ‘ l’xI’iieiqAnesti.ons presented in this writ petition are of Very<\/p>\n
se’i’iou”.sV.nVati’i~re ‘hairing signi\ufb01cant importance. So far as the<\/p>\n
V S’ ‘question Whether students having bene\ufb01t of Scheduled Caste<\/p>\n
it  Scheduled Tribe status in another State can claim the<\/p>\n
 sim_i1ar–=:status in another State to which they migrated, there<\/p>\n
“if ‘am-two Constitution Bench judgments; (1) in 1990 (33 see 130<\/p>\n
m2g_<\/p>\n
(MARR1 CHANDRAS!-IEKAR RAO Vs. DEAN, SETH G.S.MEDICAL<\/p>\n
COLLEGE 8: OTHERS}, {ii} in 1994 (5) SCC 244 (1-‘.”-.\u00a2”17.I01V<\/p>\n
COMMITTEE ON ISSUE or CASTE CERTIF?ICAfl’ii\u00a7_i’ <\/p>\n
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES  _ if <\/p>\n
or MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER Va” UNIOH <\/p>\n
ANOTHER}. In the first of the judgrnentsi’ questio.n  <\/p>\n
for consideration was:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether a;…candidatev–. ‘whose tfcaste\ufb01 was
\nrecognised as Scheduled’ Tri.’ae_irsj’the Constitution
\n{Scheduled Tnlbes)   of Andhra
\nPradesh claim the  Tribe in the
\nState of  for  to the MBBS
\ncourse {tr}   by the State of
\n “ffo1~   Bombay Municipal<\/p>\n
Corj;>ora’tion?” if -~ ., 1 V d<\/p>\n
17. As t’hei”aVnsw4er’._to~.vsaid question depended on the<\/p>\n
.\u00ab-.unde:’s3i:andintg and”interpretation of the provisions contained<\/p>\n
V’Tunde1′..Arti_cie  of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
hasAe1’abotaite1yVA’dea1t with the purport and effect of Articles<\/p>\n
 341, 1u’5{{i}\u00b0’vand\ufb0129(2) of the Constitution of India. The fact that<\/p>\n
 ” “Scheda_i1edV’Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some States have to<\/p>\n
._.\u00a7’:’~’dffet the social disadvantages and did not have the facilities<\/p>\n
” ..:ffo”r”deve1opmcnt and growth and it was therefore necessary, in<\/p>\n
…._2J”v-+4<\/p>\n
order to make them equal, in those areas where they suffered
\nsuch disadvantages, to have reservation and protection in their
\nfavour is emphasized by the Apex Court. As the sociai<\/p>\n
conditions of castes vary from State to State, the Coulrtahas<\/p>\n
found that it was not appropriate to generalise any or,<\/p>\n
Tribe as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe_for:”the or <\/p>\n
the country. It is further observed  thosegwho  <\/p>\n
State or area should ensure that tiriey-._make,.”_;w’ay”for <\/p>\n
disadvantaged and disabled of th’at:”part of  who it<\/p>\n
suffered from disabilities in those’  The”Apex Court<\/p>\n
determined the controversy case of Marri<\/p>\n
Chandra”ShelIei:.ar’:’?2;ao “heldf at para–13 as under:<\/p>\n
‘  that  ‘for the purposes of this
\nConstitiitioni inVAftic.1e’\u00ab~.3}i’1” as Well as in Article 342<\/a> do
\nimply that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes so
\n ‘tip\u00a2Ci\ufb01\u20acd W0iii\u00a31.13_e__eI1titled to enjoy all the constitutional<\/p>\n
V   are enjoyable by all the citizens as such.
\n”   right, e.g., it has been argued that right
\nC. “-to  right to move from one part to another is
\n“~a right given to all —— to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and
\nto” VVn.bn–scheduled castes or tribes. But when a<\/p>\n
it ‘ Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition
\nit   migrating but when he migrates, he does not and
\ncannot carry any speciai rights or privileges attributed<\/p>\n
to him or granted to him in the original State speci\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
3\/<\/p>\n
W22-\n<\/p>\n
for that State or area or part thereof ….  ‘ …. .. The<\/p>\n
expression “in relation to that State” would become<\/p>\n
nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the<\/p>\n
rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled <\/p>\n
are carried forward. it will also be inconsistent w;th’_pth’\u00a7t.  <\/p>\n
whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. 1:11:  <\/p>\n
Praclesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduleu””i*r:.b’egn1ay’–_<\/p>\n
require protection because a boy or a child w_ho’growsp in” ‘S<\/p>\n
that area is inhibited or is at ct”.sadvantage., 2  ”<\/p>\n
Maharashtra that caste ortlthat tribe ‘may :not._:be_”so_}<\/p>\n
inhibited but other castes or ‘tribes might be.’ if-la  or
\na child goes to that,atmospherev–of”-Maharashtra…\u00bbas a
\nyoung boy or a child goesa*–..eoIn’pletely different
\natmosphere of Maharashtra iifheiie  or this
\ndisadvantag\u20ac_:is.__notftheretti\ufb02rieirjhe cannot be said to<\/p>\n
have that rese:rva_tio.n”wlrlich the children or<\/p>\n
thevrvpeiople  \u00abbelonging to any segment of
\nthat Statextt<l;{3\u00ab._rr1a.y"sti\u00a3i…require that protection. After
\nall, lit has to \u00abmind that the protection is
\nnecessary forlthe7._disadvantaged castes or tribes of<\/p>\n
'J3\/Ial1arashtra.,as Well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of<\/p>\n
'vr.}?radesh'; """ "Thus, balancing must be done as<\/p>\n
S V' * betwfeen'those who need protection and those who need<\/p>\n
 'protecti.onf i.e., who belong to advantaged castes or<\/p>\n
who do not. Treating the determination<\/p>\n
tinder Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be<\/p>\n
 ..  valid' for all over the country would be in negation to the<\/p>\n
 V. _ fiery purpose and scheme and language of Article 341<\/a><\/p>\n
read with Article 15(4)<\/a> of the Constitution.”<\/p>\n
&.\n<\/p>\n
\n
M23__<\/p>\n
18. Further, after referring to the Constituent Assembly
\nDebates and the Views of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar on this aspect in<\/p>\n
para-21, the Apex Court has ruled in para–22 with referen_ce_to<\/p>\n
the facts in the said case holding that the petitionerin  _<\/p>\n
case was not entitled to be admitted to the   w. <\/p>\n
the basis of Scheduled Tribe Cei%tifica.tcf’v linfthedi
\nMaharasthra. K  S   it C\n<\/p>\n
19. Another Constitution  of    in
\nACTION COMMITTEES czi\u00a7e.. look into
\nthe matter as petitioners  because the<\/p>\n
State of Maharashtra–  den’ied\u00ab. Tth’e”–ben\u00a7efits and privileges<\/p>\n
available to  and Scheduled Tribes specified
\nin relation’totlf1at  Sto-rriembers of Scheduled Castes and<\/p>\n
Scheduled  belbng.’ingh.to other States who had migrated<\/p>\n
 fi*orn”ethelri.States to VthevState of Maharashtra. Such benefits<\/p>\n
and_pi’ivil’egesVh’w_er.e denied on the basis of certain Circulars<\/p>\n
 dlettersllgssued by the Government of India and<\/p>\n
 .  ‘c.onseque_nti;al instructions issued by the State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
   that members belonging to the Scheduled Castes<\/p>\n
  Scheduled Tribes specified in relation to any other State<\/p>\n
_24_<\/p>\n
shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by
\nthe State of Maharashtra unless the person concerned is
\nshown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
as on 10.08.1950 in the case of Scheduled Castesyyband<\/p>\n
06.09.1950 in the case of Scheduled Tribes whieii’weeef’-:;ee’\u00ab _<\/p>\n
dates on which the President first ‘\u00bb <\/p>\n
Constitution (Scheduled Castes] :=.yOrd-erg}  <\/p>\n
Constitution (Scheduled mbes} ordergxisso. <\/p>\n
therein, therefore, contended thatdenial ofvbene\ufb01tsi and the
\nprivileges by the State was violative of the
\nFundamental Rights conferred._oncitizens’ ny;vArticles 14, 15(1),<\/p>\n
16(2) and”l*9  being contrary to the
\nletter and spirit  and 342 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Referring tolthe earlli.er’eCon;stitution Bench judgment in Marri<\/p>\n
 ‘Chandra SShekIlia’r.Rqo.’s case. the Apex Court has observed<\/p>\n
 the_Vmi.ddl.e’of*paragraph– 15 as under:<\/p>\n
 ~.  interpretation that the Court must put
\n“on the-relevant constitutional provisions in regard
\nto’S_c1~heduled Castes\/Scheduled Tribes and other<\/p>\n
 I Sbgacleward classes must be aimed at achieving the
\n objective of equality promised to all citizens by<\/p>\n
the Preamble of our Constitution. At the same<\/p>\n
.._  VIIVVVV
\ntime it must also be realised that the language of
\nclause (1) of both the Articles 341 and 342 is<\/p>\n
quite plain and unambiguous. It clearly states–‘”–.<\/p>\n
that the President may specify the castes<\/p>\n
tribes, as the case may be, in relation to.;”e’ac-h;_’ ;. <\/p>\n
State or Union Territory for the purposesof. <\/p>\n
Constitution. It must also be realised that  <\/p>\n
specifying the castes or tribes tinder  “the 76′<\/p>\n
two articles the Presideritis, in the case’  a<\/p>\n
State, obliged to consult Gvoiiernor of<\/p>\n
Therefore. when a. class.—-is”aspecified” by the
\nPresident. after   Governor of State
\nA, it is difficult to  ii’fr1i’cic\u00a7rsta?t1ci.i’V_~: how that
\nspecification: in-ade    that State” can
\nbe treated\u00bb.as5sp–ecification in relationlto any other
\nSt:’5ttelllVWh?v\u00e9.se it theliresident has not
\ncori.sulted.   this speci\ufb01cation is not
\non1ylinlrelation””t:o  State whose Governor<\/p>\n
haspbeen ._co’nsi,ilted but is “for the purposes of<\/p>\n
.’Co_r1stitiitio~n”” meaning thereby the various<\/p>\n
 _p1’oyisions–. of the Constitution which deal with
\n V .  Castes \/Scheduled Tribes. The<\/p>\n
C’ .__Constit”ti,tion Bench has, after referring to the<\/p>\n
debates in the Constituent Assembly relating to<\/p>\n
 ‘A ; ,.thes'”e articles, observed that while it is true that a<\/p>\n
”  person does not cease to belong to his caste\/ tribe<\/p>\n
by migration he has a better and more socially<\/p>\n
free and liberal atmosphere and if sufficiently<\/p>\n
M”\n<\/p>\n
\n
M26-\n<\/p>\n
long time is spent in socially advanced areas, the
\ninhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging’<\/p>\n
to a socially disadvantageous community do n_ot~<\/p>\n
truncate his growth and the natural talents..otlaii.’\u00bb:-  :_. <\/p>\n
individual gets full scope to biossom
\nRealising that these are problems_ ‘bof
\nadjustment it was observed that tl:’iey’mus_t’be’g so
\nbalanced in the mosaic oi’ the country’s
\nthat no section or comniunity should ill-icalooselll
\ndetriment or disgcontentment.  thle’~–.othEer<\/p>\n
community.”\n<\/p>\n
20. Further, the-iifkpex  “added to what was
\nstated in Matri Chandra   case by observing as
\nfollows:  ….   V S S
\n we  that,:_:c’onsiderations for specifying a
\nparticular   class for inclusion in the
\nlist of”S_ched’ule’d lTt3astes\/ Scheduled Tribes or
\n cla”sses.\u00abi’n a given State would depend on
\nA {;r1e_}\u00a7.at1;fre. and extent of disadvantages and social
\n3  by that caste, tribe or class in that
\nS ‘ State  may be totally non est in another State to
\nV vvhich “persons belonging thereto may migrate.
\n A. , Coirictidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing
\n*  same nomenclature is speci\ufb01ed in two States but
\nthe considerations on the basis of which they have<\/p>\n
been speci\ufb01ed may be totally different. So also the<\/p>\n
._2′”jM<\/p>\n
degree of disadvantages of various elements which
\nconstitute the input for speci\ufb01cation may aisodbge<\/p>\n
totally different. Therefore, merely because <\/p>\n
caste is specified in State A as a  <\/p>\n
does not necessarily mean that if therebe–…anothge1’ it
\ncaste bearing the same nomenclature
\nState the person belonging to”:.th<;l"fo'r1ner Awoulid
\nentitled to the rights; ,_privilege's
\nadmissible to a member of S theScheduled*Caste_otVthe<\/p>\n
' latter State "for the purposes'g'~of*this Co1v1sti.tution".
\nThis is an aspect  liasgto S\u00e9befkiept in mind and
\nwhich was V very   tl~ie"'l.:fmir1ds of the
\nConstitutiorianakeijs as  the choice of
\nlanguage   3.4i:fvv  342 of the<\/p>\n
Constitutiointg, . .  '\n<\/p>\n
21. It  “fro’rnTthe’ aforementioned ruling of the
\nApex Court e\\fen”‘if a  mentioned in the Presidential<\/p>\n
Orderin”1’espect”‘ofV_Vth’e State of Karnataka as Scheduled Caste<\/p>\n
 is also mentioried as such in the Presidential Order in respect<\/p>\n
of another’ candidate belonging to that caste cannot<\/p>\n
 claim’~\u00abbeneiit.oi’ reservation in the State of Karnataka.<\/p>\n
  ‘Vhnsiiver to the points raised in this writ petition could<\/p>\n
 been difficult in the light of the two judgments of the<\/p>\n
“-.:iConstitution Bench of the Apex Court, but for the fact that<\/p>\n
ii 28 _
\nconsiderable arguments are advanced by the learned Senior
\ncounsel for the respondent–University Sri Udaya Holla placing<\/p>\n
reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in <\/p>\n
case and referring to the nature of the 2”  _<\/p>\n
University which is established with an object”to::*rnal\u00a7e’–Ait  <\/p>\n
national level institute of legal training, stull\u00e9iiesc and’-reseiarebni<\/p>\n
The Z\ufb02d respondent–Universityf is a brai’11chil:l”‘b’oVf.:’_theBar <\/p>\n
Council of India Trust. As can seen from preamble to
\nthe National Law School;:’_of_ in-\ufb01lial  (Karnataka Act
\nNo.22\/ I986} earlier a Society’ by  Law School of<\/p>\n
India Society registered under ~ihe”‘provision:s of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
Societies  object among others to
\nestablish}: niaintainf:’V’\u00bba,nd  a teaching and research<\/p>\n
institute of higher 1e-arn:n’g.;\ufb01 law conceived the idea and it is<\/p>\n
_._the  Secietyx’ Whic_lfi_requested the State Government to<\/p>\n
AV_esta’oli_s’n,the –l\\ia;’tional Law School to enable it to carry out its<\/p>\n
 and”_”_v\u00bbfui*ic’tions and therefore the Karnataka State<\/p>\n
.Legislature considered it necessary to encourage the<\/p>\n
H ‘S  Abesitablishrnent of such a national level institute and hence Act<\/p>\n
 was enacted to establish the Law School.<\/p>\n
23.<\/p>\n
__  _
\nSection 4 of the National Law School of India Act, 1986,<\/p>\n
deals with the objects of the Law School which reads as under:<\/p>\n
“4. The Objects of the School etc.– (1) The Objects_oi”._the<\/p>\n
School shall be to advance and disseminate
\nknowledge of law and legal processes and.-A4″tl1eirg:V’role in ”<\/p>\n
national development. to develop in the student .:and’~res.ea1’ch * V.<\/p>\n
scholar a sense of responsibility to  society  Lhevvtielld of<\/p>\n
law by developing skills in regard”-to :advocacy,_:’lcgalp.<\/p>\n
legislation, law reforms and-.__the lilcento o:ig’a’niseV lec_tures,_ <\/p>\n
seminars, symposia and l’eoxr1ferences ._ to hprolinote legal
\nknowledge and to make law. iand”‘Jegal processes e\ufb01icient
\ninstruments of socia-1,_devel-oprnent,~.._ ‘hold examination and
\nconfer degree and other~i.lacaderriic  and to do all
\nsuch things as are   or conducive to the<\/p>\n
attainment of  or ‘any the objects ‘of”the School.<\/p>\n
{2} it V’i’iie\u00abScl1ooi-..S’1*1a1l’ be open to all persons of either
\nsexl’-irreispecijvei ‘of_rac_el;”\u00bb.creed, caste of class of all religions<\/p>\n
and shall not be ‘la.virIu1 for the school to impose on any<\/p>\n
jperson any-test whatsoever of religious belief or profession in<\/p>\n
orcier to entitle h’i1nto be admitted thereto as a teacher or a<\/p>\n
C ” -\u00bb _Vstu,dent\u00abor’*to hold any office therein or to graduate thereat or<\/p>\n
 to  to-“exercise any privilege thereof.”<\/p>\n
C24. it<\/p>\n
norninated as the Chancellor.\n<\/p>\n
 of the Act provides that a Judge nominated by
\n  Society shall be the Chancellor of the School provided that<\/p>\n
 ‘gives his consent the Chief Justice of India shall be<\/p>\n
Section 8 deals with the<\/p>\n
ii3QW<\/p>\n
authorities of the School. The General Council, the Executive
\nCouncil and the Academic Council are the important bodies<\/p>\n
and the General Council is the Chief Advisory Bodyfo’f_the<\/p>\n
School, whereas the Executive Council is the Chief<\/p>\n
Body of the School and the Academic Council islt-hie  _  <\/p>\n
Body of the School having power” lof”conl;ro1.y  tgerierai.<\/p>\n
regulation for maintaining the standards  <\/p>\n
education and examination of “thei.vbSchool., ls.ui:g}’ec’t to other it<\/p>\n
rules and regulations.  can   the lcmntplosition of
\nthe current Members of  I~ion’ble Chief
\nJustice of India’  the  Cliainnan of the Bar
\nCouncil  faind. “s-evera1″”other eminent personalities
\nincludingsome’ Supreme Court and the Chief<\/p>\n
Justice of  .IKarnataka are the Members of the<\/p>\n
 _ ‘General Council: A’Sri,___\u00a7ldaya Holla points out that only the Law<\/p>\n
f’:_VlViiniste1*._Aof  __ Government of Karnataka, the Advocate<\/p>\n
General   Education Minister of Government of<\/p>\n
_VKarna’tak’a’.apart from Secretary to Government of Karnataka,<\/p>\n
lll\ufb01epartment of Higher Education are the only persons who<\/p>\n
l_j_.replresent the Karnataka Government and all others are drawn<\/p>\n
if from different walks of life from all over the country,<\/p>\n
_33_r,<\/p>\n
particularly from the legal field and therefore the State control<\/p>\n
over the National Law School is minimal. He, therefore,<\/p>\n
justifies the reservation for Scheduled Caste <\/p>\n
Tribe candidates across the country.\n<\/p>\n
25. It is true, the nature and 7:cor;%_ipo’sitilon”‘ of <\/p>\n
respondent – University amply'””ieInonvstratesl’l.: dis are’<\/p>\n
national level institute. the  by itself
\nwill absolve it from follovvingpthe  Order, 1950 in
\nthe matter of extendingA…reservation  Scheduled
\nCastes and     can it extend
\nreservation  helonging to Scheduled
\nCastes    _ throughout the Country. It
\ncannot beldenied  respondent — University is a<\/p>\n
creature .. of the State  The Karnataka Legislature has<\/p>\n
‘C llestablishefd this University as a national level institute. It is<\/p>\n
“al._.so_notl  that there is no provision in the Act which<\/p>\n
requires theCrespondent–Universities to extend the bene\ufb01t of<\/p>\n
 reservati’on’i~for the purpose of admission to the law course.<\/p>\n
   it is admitted before this Court that the Governing<\/p>\n
\u00e9l\/A<\/p>\n
Body of the University has accepted the reservation policy for<\/p>\n
-32″,<\/p>\n
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and has extended it to<\/p>\n
ail candidates throughout the country. This has <\/p>\n
practice right from the beginning. Only because <\/p>\n
has established the 233 respondent–UniVersiiy_,pas,aiinatiunal_<\/p>\n
level institute, it cannot be said thatin th’e’:na\u00abtter  <\/p>\n
benefit of reservation, the Presidential Iflrder,  <\/p>\n
provisions of Article 341<\/a> of the Co–ns”t:\u00a3tution*–ea1’i.be iagjiored.<\/p>\n
26. If an institution is  as.vl’.an_’pi.nstttution of national
\nimportance by the__Act of f’1r1St1tut10I1 falls
\nwithin the four  of Itern\u00e9s  in Item Nos.62,
\n63, 64 & 653  then it will be the
\n to  legislation in respect of
\nthe sameldapndlifl  makes the legislation and<\/p>\n
provides for  a reservation applicable to all the Scheduled<\/p>\n
zjfsl’Castes;Sched’uled  throughout the country, then such<\/p>\n
an   be acceptable by drawing analogies<\/p>\n
applicablev.  Central Institutions such as All India<\/p>\n
I”-\u00ab._._’In.stitute” of; Medical Science, Military Academy at Dehradun<\/p>\n
    other Central Bodies. In the instant case, the 2″”<\/p>\n
 .__”‘resp\u00e9ondent-UniVersity is established by State law and it is not<\/p>\n
m33i,<\/p>\n
an institution established by the Central law or founded by the
\nCentral Government. In that View of the matter, there can be
\nno escape from the mandatory requirement as felt out in<\/p>\n
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India as held:<\/p>\n
Apex Court in the two Constitution Bench judgmeiatlsi <\/p>\n
Chandra Shekhar Rao and Actionhycorrtmitte\u00e9; ‘~ .i:g;v\u00e9n  is he ”<\/p>\n
to be held that the State has inv’\u00bb.;fac;”eestablishjed <\/p>\n
respondent-University as a *na.t_iona1′-.. level f1’:nstitute.} the–_”<\/p>\n
reservation for Scheduled  and ‘Scheduled Tribe
\ncandidates have to be as\u00bb.\ufb01cr the  Order, 1950 as<\/p>\n
declared in relationto  Q = <\/p>\n
27. Learnedxl’ _Sri.Udaya Holla has placed
\nstrong relliance 3’1 in Pushpa’s case to contend<\/p>\n
that in-the abse.nce\u00bb.7’of ‘provision in the law requiring the<\/p>\n
 “2-W3 ‘i’espti12dent–Uniyersity to con\ufb01ne status of Scheduled<\/p>\n
l’C,as’tes’  Tribes only to the castes speci\ufb01ed in the<\/p>\n
Presidlentialltjiider, 1950 that is to say to the candidates<\/p>\n
 belonging to the State, there is no prohibition either under<\/p>\n
   15(4) or 16(4) to extend such reservations to the<\/p>\n
“Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of different States.<\/p>\n
_34_<\/p>\n
28. In Pushpa’s case, the question that arose for<\/p>\n
consideration was whether the selection and appointment<\/p>\n
made of migrant Scheduled gaste candidates of<\/p>\n
against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castieeandiidates , <\/p>\n
the post of Selection Grade Teachershin  <\/p>\n
Pondicherry was legal and valid? The—Central gAdmii1istratii’e”VVt<\/p>\n
Tribunal (Madras Bench) had  lsiiehe  and V<\/p>\n
appointment were illegal’ and p  canlhe seen from
\nparagraph 6 of the judgment living’; the main
\ncontentions urged”hy’ –the:_coun.sel’~appeaI\u00a7inVg for the appellants
\nbefore the Apei\u00e9: C’ourt’l3iV\u00a2re–:jg’:\\.,<\/p>\n
(l}_:That1 _<;1e3cisions.'__rendered in Marri Chandra
\nl\ufb01\ufb02ekhar  ;:'elied upon by the Tribunal
\nrelated vtoacase Where the migrant was from one<\/p>\n
S " State toanother State (from Andhra Pradesh to
\nS' 3-Mafiarashtrallland it can have no application to a
\n3  A "vease'\u00bbviIli–ere the migration of a Scheduled Caste
\n from a State to an adjoining or<\/p>\n
Contiguous Union Territory.\n<\/p>\n
t(2}VV”i’hat the Government of India has. from time to
\ntime. issued Circulars and Government Orders
\nclearly providing that migrant Scheduled Caste<\/p>\n
persons were eligible for appointment on posts<\/p>\n
m35__<\/p>\n
reserved for Scheduled Caste persons in the
\nUnion Territory of Pondicherry and in the
\nabsence of any statutory enactment or ruies
\nmade in exercise of powers conferred under <\/p>\n
proviso to Article 309<\/a> of the Constitution,_itiiesej <\/p>\n
Circulars or Government Orders arc:4′:.”biVndiiig’t  ”<\/p>\n
upon the Government of POIJ1,ChC_herr_sT.:’.”  ” = <\/p>\n
(3) That right from inception,  tram
\nPondicherry had bx-\u00a7eii..__ foliowing
\nWhereunder migrant Scheduiedda persons
\nwere held eiigiiile foriiiappvointinent o,n””1’eserved
\nposts which wastythe and uniform
\npolicy of the Stateand therefore  be heid<\/p>\n
to begiilegai oij contrary:.”to’*i.an_v constitutionai<\/p>\n
~ ‘ provisions: “fl; “–\n<\/p>\n
In the baCk’g1~.oun–.d_ ofijpthteseeontentions, the Apex Court after<\/p>\n
referringv to   241 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
 dealing’ I,inion”‘I’e’i*1ritoIies, has held in paragraphs 14, 15,<\/p>\n
 ii? o-f\u00bb_tiie’jridgment as under:\n<\/p>\n
.514.’ effect of these provisions is also that the
\njiidnunistrator (Lt Governor of Pondicherry} and his
\npcounciii of Ministers act under the general contro} of and
\nare under an obiigation to comply with any patticuiar
\ndirection issued by the President. Further, the
\nAdministrator [Lt Governor of Ponciicherry) while acting<\/p>\n
_ 36 _
\nunder the scope of the authority given to him under
\nArticle 239<\/a> of the Constitution would be the Central<\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n
15. The Central Government has issued several<\/p>\n
orders and circulars extending the benefit of <\/p>\n
candidates of other States in the matter of employment
\nthe UT of Pondicherry which need to be  .;. <\/p>\n
letter was sent by the Joint Secretary, Goveriiment=.of<\/p>\n
India, Ministry of Home Affairs, t_.o~~th_e Lt_”Goverriorx’o4f:<\/p>\n
Pondicherry on 4~2w1974 and .’is”~-be~.inVg_ <\/p>\n
reproduced below: ……. ..\n<\/p>\n
16. These documents sliogivtthat
\nPondicherry has throughout beeirproceeding “on,the_loasis
\nthat being a Unio1i..4_.'”1’eri’itor5\u00a7I,. a.llV._io’rders regarding
\nreservation for SC\/ST  ;-espemf of posts\ufb01services under
\nthe Central Government”are”atjplicxable.  Vjdosts\/ services<\/p>\n
under the Poni3’iVChge’rry’Advininistration as Well. Since all
\nSC\/ST .can,didates’–4.vvhgic’i1yhave been recognised as such
\nunder the”‘ordersVissu–.’_3d the President from time to time<\/p>\n
irrespective of V-the State\/ Union Territory, in relation to<\/p>\n
 . V vvhicl1’e”paert:’.cular castes or tribes have been recognised as<\/p>\n
V *  are eligible for reserved posts \/ services under the<\/p>\n
be 2 x”C.entralu_”G_overr1mer1t, they are also eligible for reserved<\/p>\n
posts;’serv’ices under the Pondicherry Administration.
\nConsequently, all SC \/ST candidates from outside the UT
\n” * Poridicherry would also be eligible for posts reserved for
\nV’ -SC’\/ST candidates in the Pondicherry Administration.
\n Therefore, right from the inception, this policy is being
\nconsistently followed by the Pondicherry Administration<\/p>\n
M37-\n<\/p>\n
whereunder migrant SC\/ST candidates are held to be
\neligible for reserved posts in the Pondicherry<\/p>\n
Administration.\n<\/p>\n
17. We do not find anything inherently wrong ,or.\u00bb<\/p>\n
any infraction of any constitutional provision in sticli. <\/p>\n
policy. The principle enunciated in Morn’  ‘T  <\/p>\n
Shekhar Ran cannot have application here as
\nPondicherry is not a State. As shown
\nTerritory is administered by the  .’
\nAdministrator appointed by him. ln’the:conteX.tV
\n246, Union Territories are excliided from the -the”\n<\/p>\n
expression “State” occurring    clearly
\nexplained by a Constitution Belnchl’in*”T._M.K.anVniyan Vs.<\/p>\n
ITO. In New Delhi Municipal Clot\u00e9rictil of Puryab the
\nmajority has approved the:’1<atioV__tof:pT.i'l\/I. and has<\/p>\n
held that they-.[Alrii_on [Teri'it_o3riesAl"are_un'otj'$tates for the<\/p>\n
purposdellvof Conhstiltiition {para 145}. The
\nTribunal~ has. Vti:\u00a7\u00a71egfore.Vl'e.lear1y"erred in applying the ratio
\nof Marti 'Cyhandrct Rao in setting aside the
\nselection and 'app\u00a2.intmeht of migrant SC candidates."\n<\/p>\n
   3.\u00ab.pAaragraph–.’2’l”llof the judgment, the Apex Court
\n“tt:\u00a3\u00e9::;tng 341(1) & 342 (1) of the Constitution has
\nobseryed thatigalrticle 16(4) is not controlled by a Presidential
\nOrder tested under Article 341(1)<\/a> or Article 342(1)<\/a> of the
\nV’Coi1.stit1ution in the sense that reservation in the matter of<\/p>\n
appointment on posts may be made in a State or Union<\/p>\n
W 38 W
\nTerritory only for such Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
\nwhich are mentioned in the Schedule appended to the
\nPresidential Order for that particular State or Union Territory.<\/p>\n
However, without elaborating this aspect further With..reference<\/p>\n
to the ratio laid down in the Constitution A <\/p>\n
Marti Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action _-Co’:11lri\u00a75.ttee’;.y the S”<\/p>\n
Apex: Court confined its observation’  :1-if<\/p>\n
paragraph–2l by holding as uns’ier:_p
\n“if a State or Union Teri’3,to1*y  It a lfiprovision
\nwhereunder the bene\ufb01t of”reservatio1a.Qis extended only to
\nsuch Scheduled Castes’  ‘Tribes which are<\/p>\n
recognised  vsuclffini relation_ to’.  State or Union<\/p>\n
iiseicr:.:a’–.provisiori’lwould be perfectly valid.
\nHowever,lVltii.-zreil’would’-be no infraction of clause (4) of
\nArticle  if._a  by virtue of its peculiar
\np_osition=.be’ingV  by the President as laid down in<\/p>\n
..\u00ab}\u00a7lrticle 239″‘–extends the benefit of reservation even to<\/p>\n
 ., ‘  Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who<\/p>\n
  llare\ufb01afiotlrrieritioned in the Scheduled to the Presidential
\n  for such Union Territory. The UT of
\nl.\u00b0i3ori-dicilleny having adopted a policy of the Central<\/p>\n
_ Government whereunder all Scheduled Castes or<\/p>\n
 ,  ‘Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their State are eligible
\nS for posts which are reserved for SC\/ST candidates, no<\/p>\n
legal in\ufb01rmity can be ascribed to such a policy and the<\/p>\n
\u00a37,<\/p>\n
M39M<\/p>\n
sarne cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of<\/p>\n
59<\/span><\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
30. It is thus clear that in Pushpa’s case, the .[”Bench<\/p>\n
Consisting of three Hon’b1e Judges of the Supreme\u00abV.Court’f’i)ehi1e<\/p>\n
categorically holding that Article 341(1)<\/a> and  :3.-<\/a>mile\u00bb  <\/p>\n
the Constitution cannot come in the Way .of”‘l’et%1’ito1\u00b0ies<\/p>\n
by virtue of its peculiar position\u00bbA:’\u00abheir1\u00e9 got\/c.rrIed\u00ab. <\/p>\n
President as laid down in  from:  theft’<\/p>\n
bene\ufb01t of reservation to mig:*ant- ‘Scheduled. Castes or
\nScheduled Tribes has net”ex.ten_;iecl  isle analogy to the
\nStates. There wasfno oecaVsio’b; for\\.,the Ape\u00a7r’VCourt in the said
\njudgmentto  position as the question arose
\nwas onlyhurith Gniorl Territory of Pondicherry<\/p>\n
and not .reference._t’oe.:the State or States. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
 contention of “Udaya.Ho1la, learned Senior Counsel that in<\/p>\n
 spite of law laidclown in the cases of Marri Chandra Shekar<\/p>\n
and2kctibrl_”_{2o’r}intittee, the Apex Court in Pushpa’s case has<\/p>\n
V . clarified ‘t’he’p.osition by holding that if the State enacts a law<\/p>\n
” reservation to all Scheduled Castes and Scheduled<\/p>\n
_”I’rifb’esA’across the country, it is not affected by the provisions<\/p>\n
  “contained under Article 341{1}<\/a> or Article 342(1<\/a>), cannot be<\/p>\n
 \ufb01g<\/p>\n
_41is<\/p>\n
consisting of two learned Judges of the Apex Court in the said
\ndecision has considered the following questions as can b.e”s.een
\nfrom paragraph– 18:\n<\/p>\n
{1} Having regard to the decisions of this Cou_._rtt  1
\nChandra Shekar Rao {supra} and ‘$t1;gg_n
\n{supra}, the specification of a”:.’pa-r_tic’t1la1*.
\nTribe to be a Scheduled Caste
\nbeing in relation to that  or U’nioii
\nwhether a person onhis migraitiorriito anotherVState
\nwould carry the sarne.s’tatta_s  <\/p>\n
(2) Whether in offthe V’oif.V”t’his Court in<\/p>\n
Action   izsrhere the similar
\nCaste haying been declared to
\nbe  State to which he
\norig:,ina,E_Iy  the State and\/ or Union
\nTerritcij to ‘h:as”‘.migrated would make any
\ndifference\u00bb  “the provisions contained in
\n_Aij:ioie 341 of’the___Constitution of India?<\/p>\n
   -View of the decisions of the ‘Constitution
\nit   Court in State of Maharashtra vs.
\ni\\4?iiIin’d 3: tors. [(2001) 1 sec 4] and E.V.Chinnaiah vs.
\nVi_state’–‘nf AP. :31 ors. [(2005) 1 sec 394] extension of
\nnoitification even to a migrant would amount to
\nmodi\ufb01cation and\/or alteration of the notification<\/p>\n
which is impermissible in law in View of clause {2} of<\/p>\n
(5)<\/span><\/p>\n
 ‘~32.\n<\/p>\n
‘to’   1~’fushpa’s case and also the decision in 2004<\/p>\n
(1) sec’ 53o ‘v{C__EIiiXNDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ANOTHER vs.<\/p>\n
_42s<\/p>\n
Article 341<\/a> and clause [2] of Article 342<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India’?\n<\/p>\n
Whether having regard to the provisions contaiiied it
\nArticles 239 and 239AA of the Constitution he _1:re1a:ien”t r it
\nto Union Territory it is pennissible\u00e9
\nGovernment to direct I’\u20acCruit’J:n\u20acI;it,A.1I10″‘*–.t.1;1\u20ac!   it<\/p>\n
Territory Services treating. it to Cbgetbakin  Ceritral <\/p>\n
Civil Services in view of the-vd:e*cision.s of’
\nChandigarh Administration Vf_su_p’ra] and .VSAA.l?A1.ifsh;;a<\/p>\n
(supra)?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the.v.ratio:.A’1aid:*dovvii   Court in
\nChandigarh Qirjininistraa\u00e9n .”‘(su’fira}….:and S.PushQa
\n[supra]  consideration the
\nbinding  ..ijri._:Cor1stitution Bench in ;\\_\/_I_i_1j_;1__d
\n(su}ira]_  (supra). and M.C.D. vs. Veena<\/a> &
\np_1_”_sg”{.(2’O.Oi] would constitute binding<\/p>\n
precede11t_s’?\u00bb. ._ A<\/p>\n
 p-a:ragraph;3’6″”of the judgment the Apex Court refers<\/p>\n
 \u00e9  & OTHERS) and raises a question as under:<\/p>\n
A  it be said that Marri Chandra Shekar Rao does<\/p>\n
  not apply to Union Territory?’ and answers it saying ‘The<\/p>\n
answer thereto, in our opinion, is a big emphatic ‘no’.”<\/p>\n
16\/<\/p>\n
W43-\n<\/p>\n
33. In paragraph-38, the Apex Court further points out<\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n
“38. If the principle applied in S.Pusl’a\u00a7Vaf”c:”.o.
\n{supra} is to be given a logical extension, it wi1.l leadlff
\nto an absurdity, that the Scheduled Castes-~Order”in <\/p>\n
a State brought under the control ofthe Pre-s:ifde_i1.tVV”‘l’l<\/p>\n
under Article 356<\/a> could be altered’.A_AbylC virtue–.of.. <\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation issued in pursuance ofArticle”v:l6′.{e4}–..eeof
\nthe Constitution. Clause  Article. jii\u00e9vl ofbithe
\nConstitution, as noticed hereir_ibef’or_e, cannot be
\nmade applicable for the  bene\ufb01t of
\nreservation for Scheclultfd  Scheduled<\/p>\n
Tribes in 2;; “State or Union\u00bb Tei*1’itQI.’jf. who have<\/p>\n
migratedtoC.f’Vano’ll:ie1<.:vState_ ohrmllnion Territory and
\nthey are not .the."'rneinbersV..-of the Scheduled Castes
\nand Scheduled Tribes'.\n<\/p>\n
 [By virt’ue._._._of Article 341<\/a>, the Presidential<\/p>\n
_ CA  under clause (1) thereof acquire an
\n     But for Articles 341 and 342 of
\n Consititlution, it would have been possible for
\n thehtlnion and the States, to legislate upon, or<\/p>\n
 .. frarner\ufb01olicies. concerning the subject of reservation,
\n r\\_3’is}’a~vis inclusion of Castes\/Tribes. The presence of
\nlfArticles 338. 338A, 341, 342 in the Constitution<\/p>\n
clearly preclude that.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
W44-\n<\/p>\n
34. The Apex Court has gone on to observe in<\/p>\n
paragraph–\/~10 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Both the Central Government and
\nGovernment indisputably maymlay dovvn”‘
\ndecision in regard to reservationihaving iggn’-d..
\nArticles 15 and 16 of the Consdtitution of.  it
\nsuch a policy cannot violate oth’cr__
\nprovisions. A policy cannof~..gave_  ‘over the
\nconstitutional    _  <\/p>\n
_ If for the purposes  v?_;..4ll1~.and 342 of
\nthe Constitution  the Union
\nTerritory  par: on the  ‘of: ad rninsitrative
\nex1’gibi=i1i’tyV_V..”‘–o:r””     the administrative
\npQwer,_lt.he :’consti.tntionlal—–v.int’erdict contained in
\nclause   or-clause (2) of Article 342<\/a><\/p>\n
of the Constitutionv\u00e9ofyiliidia cannot be got rid of.”<\/p>\n
  furtiier goes”on”to observe in paragraph–4i that ‘any<\/p>\n
po’licy decision. thus, must satisfy the<\/p>\n
constitutionalffrefquirements laid down under Articles 341 and<\/p>\n
 342 of’ theponstitution of India. If any other construction is<\/p>\n
   policy decision having regard to the decisions of this<\/p>\n
 vvill have to be treated as a proviso appended to clause<\/p>\n
 of Article 341<\/a> of the Constitution of India and would<\/p>\n
“.46..\n<\/p>\n
Court in a large number of decisions including
\nThree Judge Bench decisions. Pushpa, “thereforefv<\/p>\n
could not have ignored either Marri <\/p>\n
Shekhar Rao or other decisions following   ‘V’ <\/p>\n
only on the basis of an adrninistrative…,c_ii=cular _
\nissued or otherwise and n1ore”‘s.og_
\nConstitutional scheme as containedliii”clause  7 A
\nArticles 341 and 342 of .t;he__ Constitutions.’ovTi\u00a7ri\u00a71gia
\nputting the State and Union.\n<\/p>\n
bracket.\n<\/p>\n
Following Dayllangand  vtlilerefore, we
\nare of the opinion that   in  is an<\/p>\n
obiter and  lay  ratio.”\n<\/p>\n
37. Sri Udaya   S:enior:\u00a7Counse1 however placing
\ncertain auth_o1*itiesVbevfore’ has contended that even if
\nthe observations  case are to be considered<\/p>\n
as obiter as deo.lared  the Apex Court, the obiter is also<\/p>\n
 ‘binding den” this’  already stated above, the question<\/p>\n
“that._gr\u00a2i11  ‘co’n.si1deration in Pushpcrs case is the binding<\/p>\n
nature of i’..–Clentra1 Government direction followed by the<\/p>\n
C”-‘..__Union ‘I’eVifi?:tory of Pondicherry in extending the status of<\/p>\n
   Caste and Scheduled Tribe to candidates belonging<\/p>\n
  the States outside Pondicherry located contiguous to<\/p>\n
M48″\n<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the present case, the 2″” respondent-<\/p>\n
University could not have extended reservation 3 litori._the<\/p>\n
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of  _<\/p>\n
ignoring the Presidential Order, 1950 declarin.g_c:ertai-n castes–\u00ab.. <\/p>\n
as Scheduled Castes and Scheduledfl\ufb01hes <\/p>\n
of Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
39. This will now take us to    tolfiwhat will
\nbe the effect of this ordenan  already made.
\nRespondents-5 to  havleheieii.aldtrlitteei they belonged
\nto Scheduled  ‘other  only after their
\nadmission,    filed. After \ufb01ling the
\npresent 0’  apgalica\ufb02on is \ufb01led seeking
\namendmer;\u00abtJlo’f   fietitiorfchallenging their selection and<\/p>\n
admission as l”Well.t Neariyltiisio months have lapsed since the<\/p>\n
 l’admissio11A—sis mnadeo” Asrightly contended by Sri Aditya Sondhi<\/p>\n
Slearned appearing for some of the students, the fact<\/p>\n
that’adlmis_silons}of these respondents were made pursuant to<\/p>\n
 ‘policies followed since long and that there Was absolutely no<\/p>\n
  rifiisreoresentation on their part in this regard and further that<\/p>\n
  have been so selected based on their merit, cannot be<\/p>\n
liglnored. Since 07.07.2009 these respondents have been<\/p>\n
-50,”\n<\/p>\n
also in the University, it is open for it to take recourse to the
\nsame. At this stage, it is necessary to observe that the<\/p>\n
petitioner has approached this Court before the <\/p>\n
completed. In fact, the petitioner had sought   <\/p>\n
order and this Court did not grantnanp in_terirn’iiliorderfonly<\/p>\n
because the 2%’ respondent–Univers’ity<\/p>\n
Court at the time of prelirninary hearing_pthat’:._;Vadmission<\/p>\n
process which was otherwise oper1i’even_p on th’e–.s_a1pg17 date was<\/p>\n
reportedly advanced and lcoxmplete-ii} } it<\/p>\n
40. In .the resuit.?_l3oth::_the appli.cati_ons__p:tjiled for amendment
\nand impleadingCla;re”ailo\\Iveds’;’.– , A’l:l””e.ti:tior1VerV\u00abto file amended copy of
\nMemorandunirof.Writ\u00ab.Pet.iti’on forthwith. This Writ Petition is
\nallowed in’p_a1′”t,<\/p>\n
{a} _ Ituist-.ord’eredV’th.at the 2?” respondent–National Law
\n  3choolll’of””lVndia University cannot extend the
\nv’yst.at’us of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe to<\/p>\n
it “*4:l’cVan.didates hailing from other States or areas
\n the Constitution (Presidentiail Order,<\/p>\n
  1950 issued in relation to the State of Karnataka;<\/p>\n
‘C(13) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to admit the<\/p>\n
daughter of the petitioner to the five year Law<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009 Author: B.S.Patil IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY or SEPTEMBER. 2009 V. BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUST:c}: B.S. PATI_I_…L : ‘ WRIT PETITION No.18534~\/201\u00a79 ” BETWEEN: LGLAKSHA, S\/O. LATE KRANGA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, . REPRESENTED AS GUARDIAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-250014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-30T16:47:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T16:47:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":7290,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T16:47:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-30T16:47:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T16:47:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009"},"wordCount":7290,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009","name":"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T16:47:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lolaksha-vs-the-convener-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lolaksha vs The Convener on 10 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}