While dealing with the Writ Petitions challenging cancellation of the 2022-23 admission process by the National Law University Tripura, the division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the University's actions which it perceived as endangering the future prospects of students.

Further, the Court issued a directive to the NLU, compelling it to present a plan outlining how it intends to accommodate students who have already secured admission for the upcoming 2023-2024 academic year.

Justice Kaul remarked, "People have chosen to seek admissions... What is this? This is a mockery of the NLU setup... you should not have advertised that such a college exists. Please file an affidavit. You can't play with children's careers.."

Justice Dhulia added, "The reason which you gave earlier is hardly any reason...No domicile quota... What is this? You could have stated that there is no proper teaching staff."

Earlier, the Court had impleaded the Bar Council of India and had sought its response. The Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the situation, remarking that the National Law University had raised students' hopes by potentially offering them admission, even those who may not have secured admission elsewhere. The Court strongly criticized this approach, stating,

"This is not how a National Law University should operate!" Furthermore, the Court questioned how the University had received certification from the Bar Council of India, given the apparent absence of both faculty and a proper infrastructure, as mentioned in the order.

Today, the Bar Council of India apprised the Court that the National Law School in question was established through a State Act. The BCI explained that colleges established under State Acts are afforded a specific provision in the rules of legal education, allowing them a one-year window to apply for inspection.

Contrary, other universities and colleges must apply for inspection immediately. In response to this information, the Bench posed a question, inquiring whether the BCI had actually conducted the inspection. The Counsel responded in the negative, stating, "We do not have an application for inspection from them, but they are granted one year, and this timeframe concludes on October 10, 2023."

Furthermore, the petitioner informed the Court that she had secured admission in Jabalpur and another location, however, due to the considerable distance, she intended to enrol in Tripura and consequently sacrificed her opportunities at the other institutes, and as a result, lost this academic session.

Inquiring about the plans to address student concerns, the Court directed a question to Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who represented the National Law University. In the order, the Court noted,

"Upon hearing the counsel for all parties involved, a highly unsatisfactory situation becomes evident. It is a fact that the National Law University did not commence admissions for the academic year 2022-2023, and for the academic year 2023-2024, no admissions were conducted due to the unavailability of adequate facilities."

Continuing, the Court stated in its order, "In view of that aforesaid position, the Counsel of the Petitioner submits that there are candidates who got admission in other NLUs but due to proximity did not want to go to other institutes. It is submitted that several of the candidates who are left and are desirous of seeking admission, be accommodated for the admission of 2023- 2024 provided that they show that they have got admission. Learned Counsel for the NLU seeks short accommodation to obtain requisite information. Such of the Petitioner who are interested in seeking admission may enclose their admission copy to the learned counsel for the Respondent."

The Bench posted the matter for October 16, 2023.

Case Title - Somya Sanjay Vs. National Law University Tripura Agartala & connected matter
Diary No.- 693 - 2023