IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION . WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 600 OF 2015 IN OF: Shamnad Basheer . ..Petitioner Versus Union of India Ors. ON BEHALF OF UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT I, RAJENDRA PRASAD TEWARI, S/o SHRI B.D. TEWARI, aged about .52 years, working as Under Secretary, Ministry of Human ResoUrce Development, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001 do hereby solemnly af?rm and state as under:- That I am, working as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Human Resource Development and am aware about the facts of the case and hence, am competent to swear this counter-af?davit on behalf of respondent no.1. have read and understood the contents of Writ Petition and my reply to the same is as under. The facts which have not been specifically admitted by the answering respondent are deemed to A be denied. Petitioner craves leave of this court to ?le additional affidavit or any document if required at any stage of hearing. . ::22: ?34" 3H4 3 9 Expiry - . 2Cl2l .5. -.- . The following issues are involved in the present Writ Petition:- BCI recommended for establishment of ?ve-year LLB integrated programme. That in 1986 State of Karnataka set up the ?rst autonomous institute, National Law School of India University (NLSIU) and thereafter number of (were set up in various states. That till the year 2007 each university used to conduct separate examlBut. in Varun Bhagat vs. Union of India ors, 68/2006, the Hon?ble Court asked the institution to hold a single window entrance test for admission to most of the NLUS Law Colleges across the country. That on 23/11/2007 the 7 NLUs entered and signed memorandum of understanding declaring the institution of Common Law Admission Some of the salient features of were:- a) Single entrance examination for all participating NLUs and students would-be admitted based on score. b) Examination to be held by different NLUs each year based on its year of establishment. c) The overall supervision and policy making of CLAT would'lie With the Core?Committee (CLAT-CC) comprising the Vice-Chancellors of all participating universities (as its members). The would be headed by the Vice?Chancellor of the- :Organizing University as its Convener. vi. 3 d) The planning, preparation and execution of the entrance test 'would lie. with the Implementation Committee (CLAT-IC). e) The money received from the application fee of the candidate would be allocated in following mannerz~ i. The. Organizing University would retain 50% of the proceeds to meet the expenditure for conducting the examination and ii. the remaining 50% would be shared amongst the participating NLUs. That on 01.11.2014, 16 NLUs entered into afresh The main contention of the petitioner is that the entrance test held by CLAT each year for purpose of admission to graduate and post-graduate programmes. in the discipline of law offered at National Law University in India is arbitrary and unreasonable; inconsistent, substandard and inef?cient. Therefore, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:? a) The Hon?ble Court may direct to appoint an expert committee?to review the. working of CLAT. and to conduct most professional and scienti?c error?free exam. b) To constitute an independent professional permanent body tasked with conducting CLAT on annual basis on behalf of all the NLUs (including framing of syllabus, determination of application fee. VII. 9? ix. v?r 4 3 51:1 3* 7" 5X a T311. 4 format of exam, declaration of of . merit list, counselling and allotments). Various Writ Petitions were ?led by the candidates who appeared in the CLAT examination, la in WP (lodging) No. 1784/15, Mr. Shubham Dutt vs: The Convener. CLAT ors (Bombay High Court), where Hon'ble court passed the following orders which are at pages 149-150 of Vol. I of a) CLAT to appoint expert committee as early as possible for clarification and explanation. b) Expert committee to take decision on all the - objections/questions within 3 days thereafter. 0) Expert Committee to take effective decisions and actions for reappearing/ or revising the merit list of candidates if necessary after revaluation within 4 days thereafter. That similar directions were passed by other high courts also in 1025/15 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur) which are at page 156 of Vol. I of WP. Similarly, the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in WP No.? 7970/15 and 8480/15 also passed the similar direction which is at pages 160?162 of Vol. I of WP. Similarly, the High Court ofi'New Delhi also passed similar direction in 6030/15 which is at pages 164-165 of Vol. lof WP. That WP No. 12388115 Agrima Lailer vs. Union of India ors. (PUnjab and Haryana High Court) was dismissed by Hon'ble Court which is at page's 213?214, vol. I of WP. That Union of India through Ministry of Human Resource Development has been impleaded as respondent no.1 in the present writ petition. The case is about CLAT examination for entry into specific National Law Institutes (about 17 in number allover India). The petitioner in the writ petition among other things has challenged the validity of the examination stating that it should be entrusted to a single body. The petitioner in the writ petition has also questioned the quality ?of the question papers and answers. That the first CLAT examination was held in 2008. The CLAT is conducted rotationally by the 17 National Law Institutions duly recognized by UGC and exclusively dealing with Law subjects. NLUs have been established by States Statutes/Acts. CLAT is primarily for entrance into UG courses in Law programmes approved by BCI, respondent no.2. That the Union of India through Ministry of Human Resource Development (hereinafter called as MHRD) states that MHRD was never involved in the aforesaid CLAT Examination. However, the comments of University Grants Commission, the apex body regulating higher education in the country, are that CLAT is a non-statutory body brought into existence by 17 NLUs through an instrument of Conducting entrance examination for' admission into programmes of study Is an internal matter of the university which is autonomous to - 12*. .- . .2112 1-: - devise any such mechanism with the approval of its competent councils in the interest of quality and standard of education. UGC does not interfere with universities in such matters. The NLU conducting the CLAT examination for a particular year is responsible for a free and fair conduct of examination. 6. Hence, it is. submitted before the Hon'ble Court that Union'of I India through Secretary, - Ministry of Human Resource 7? Development, i.e. the 1St respondent is not concerned with the CLAT. h' a . .- Deponent (we're mare (RAJENDRA PRASAD TEWAR-J ??n/Under Secular, warn/Gen. of India at. B. mill/Min. of H. R. 5. ma? ?rm awn/Dig Higher C-xr. =11: Evil/N- Veri?cation . Verified at New Delhi on 26 day of October, 2016 that the contents of the counter-affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, which are derived from the official records maintained. No part of it is false and no material has been concealed therefromL..- ?KEhHLalsihu I .Ii' i I -: A . Deponent . 5: - (m can: W1, .. 1 54:15FHASAD Samar, wan/God. of lnc.a ff- - m, 14. f2. mt/Mn. 01H I :52: =7 - 915?. W, /D'o mgr-2?3: . 990A ., STE 9