Plea for conducting Home-Based Exam for CLAT 2020 Rejected by Delhi High Court
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in V Govinda Ramanan Vs Consortium of National Law Universities &amp; Anr. [W.P.(C) 4848/2020] dismissed a petition for conducting CLAT in Home based exam format. Background –  The petitioner is an LLM aspirant who has approached the High Court for a change in the mode of CLAT examination as an offline/physical examination is detrimental to his ‘Right to life’ and ‘Right to health’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. The petitioner suffers from asthma and is among the vulnerable group as per the advisory direction of the government. The CLAT-2020 examination was to be held on 22.08.2020 which has been extended to 28.09.2020. The petitioner prayed for a home-based examination which is conducted by the consortium of 22 National Law Universities. The Respondent consortium assured that all the necessary measures of disinfection of the centre, thermal screening of students and social distancing etc will be adhered to as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development on 06.07.2020 for conducting examinations at physical test centre for final term examinations for Universities, IIT-JEE, NEET, etc. Since there are approximate 78,000 students appearing for CLAT home-based exam will not serve the larger interest of an entrance as it gives scope to malpractices and it will also be prejudicial to candidates not having a stable internet connection or a laptop or desktop. Held –
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V GOVINDA RAMANAN Through Mr.Yudhvir Singh Chauhan petitioner in person CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES & ANR Through Mr.Dayan Krishnan Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vinayak Mehrotra Adv. for R 1 Mr.Ajay Digpaul Mr.Himanshu Pathak and Mr.Kamal R.Digpaul Advs. for R 2 HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH O R D E R This hearing is conducted through video conferencing Allowed subject to all just exceptions CM APPL. No.17491 2020 For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed Court fees be filed within two weeks W.P.(C) 4848 2020 CM.APPL Nos.17489 & 19726 2020 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking an appropriate direction to quash the CLAT 2020 examination notification issued by respondent No.1 in so far as it mandates directs the petitioner to physically go to the examination centre and give the exam The petitioner is a law graduatewho wishes to pursue his LL.M. It is pleaded that the petitioner suffers from asthma and as such falls under the vulnerable category of individuals who are advised by the Government not to go outside in the present time application forms were invited by the NLU’s respondent No.1 to conduct CLAT 2020 for UG and PG Law programs offered by the 22 National Law Universities It is pleaded that on account of COVID 19 pandemic the entire educational system in the country has come to a standstill. Schools Colleges Universities are completely closed The CLAT 2020 examination was to be held on 22.08.2020. This date now has been extended to 28.09.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is mandatory for the petitioner to physically go to the testing center and to give the said examination which is dangerous in the present circumstances It is pleaded that the Government of India has granted certain concessions on movement. However movements of the individuals under the risk category i.e. elderly children and other individuals who are suffering from ailments continues to be restricted. Hence the present writ petition Respondent No.1 the consortium of NLU has filed its counter affidavit. It is stated that respondent No.1 is responsible for conducting the Common Law Admission Testwhich is a common examination for entry to various National Law Universities across the country Approximately 78 000 candidates are expected to appear in the examination across 203 centers in the country It is further pleaded that similar petitions have been rejected by the Supreme Court for various other examinations pertaining to professional degree courses. Reliance is placed on various decisions to the said effect that have been passed by the Supreme Court It is also pointed out that respondent No.1’s decision to conduct CLAT 2020 at physical test centers was challenged by way of Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court of India. The same was dismissed in lemine by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the order titled ‘Mitul Jain v. Consortium of NLUs & Ors.’ in W.P.(C 717 2020 dated 29.07.2020 further pleaded that the Ministry of Human Resource Development has on 06.07.2020 issued instructions examinations at physical test centers for final term examinations for Universities IIT JEE NEET etc. These instructions would also cover the conduct of CLAT 2020 by respondent No.1 It is stated that vide office memorandum dated 06.07.2020 it is specially noted that the MHA has granted an exemption for opening educational institutions for the purpose of holding such examinations evaluation work. Further in case there are restrictions on movement in certain areas admit identity cards issued to the candidates would be treated as a pass for the movement of students. It is stated that the State Governments would issue instructions to all local authorities to issue movement passes to invigilators and all personnel engaged in the conduct of examination. All precautions would be taken i.e steps would be taken for disinfection of the entire examination center provision for sanitizer at the entry gate examination rooms staff rooms seating plans to ensure proper social distancing thermal screening of all concerned individuals at entry gates etc. would be done. The notification dated 30.06.2020 issued by respondent No.1 detailing the medical precautions to be undertaken while conducting CLAT 2020 examination has also been annexed with the counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 10. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that home base online test be conducted it has been pleaded that home based online test for around 78 000 students would not be possible. The test would be completely compromised and may even be manipulated by the participants or coaching centers. The several meetings which took place by respondent No.1 whereafter it was concluded that an online test at home with technological measures cannot ensure transparency fairness and integrity of a high stake examination such as CLAT. Further home based exams require access to a laptop or desktop computer internet access and network stability Respondent No.1 cannot expect all candidates to have access to these resources at home. Further such a course would severely harm those candidates from the backward areas sections The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit. In the course of arguments he has reiterated that all his contentions have been noted in the rejoinder. The contents of the rejoinder may be looked into It has been pleaded that the direction to the petitioner who is an asthmatic to appear physically in the examination center of CLAT 2020 is violative of ‘Right to Life’ and ‘Right to Health’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence is liable to be set aside Further reliance is placed on the notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Disaster Management Act 2005 on 29.07.2020 where certain guidelines and restrictions have been issued. Reliance is placed on one of the guidelines which states that persons above 65 years of age and persons with co morbidities are advised to stay at home except for essential and health purposes. It is pleaded that the act of the respondents tantamounts to violation of the said guidelines. Any such violation invites prosecution in terms of the Disaster Management Act 2005 and other It is further pleaded that because of the present COVID 19 situation the premiere institution like Indian Institute of Mass Communication has cancelled its entrance examination It is stated that mere observations in the order of the Supreme Court does not cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner It is further pleaded that the home based online exam is the safest and the best mode in these trying times and especially in view of the COVID 19 I may first have a look at the order of the Supreme Court dated 29.07.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.717 2020 titled ‘Mitul Jain vs Consortium of NLUs & Ors. The said petition was dismissed by the O R D E R We are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.” Keeping in view the aforesaid it is clear that the aforesaid order would remain binding on this court Even otherwise it is clear that the plea of respondent No.1 that a home based exam may not be appropriate for approximately 78 000 candidates who are to take the exam. The possibility of the exams being compromised or manipulated by the participants coaching centers cannot be ruled out. That apart the problem of accessibility for 78 000 candidates to appropriate technology internet connection laptop or desktop computer itself would be doubtful. Hence this plea of the petitioner cannot be Further reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the guidelines of the Ministry of Home Affairs is misplaced. The said guidelines clearly provide that persons with co morbidities are advised to stay at home It is at best ‘an advisory’ Further as pointed out in counter affidavit by respondent No.1 the Ministry of Human Resources Development has issued instructions for conducting examinations at physical centers for final term examination of Universities IIT JEE NEET etc. The concerned memorandum notes that MHA has granted exemptions for opening educational holding such examinations. The office memorandum envisages and permits the conduct of the examinations online offline mode subject to adherence to the Standard Operating Procedure which is sought to be followed by It is clear that the pleas of the petitioner are misplaced and cannot be a ground for postponing the exams change of mode to conduct the exam I may also note that the petitioner has completed his LL.B. in 2016. It is now after a gap of 4 years that he seeks to apply for a Post Graduation in Law. The Petitioner has hence waited for four years to give the exam There is no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed SEPTEMBER 10 2020 v JAYANT NATH J Page 