The National Law School of India University (NLSIU) in Bengaluru has decided to conduct its own, home-based entrance test instead of accepting scores secured in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), The Times of India reported. The decision comes in the backdrop of continued postponement of the CLAT exam owing to the coronavirus pandemic and the following lockdown.

Termed as the National Law Aptitude Test, the entrance exam will be held on September 12 for LLB and LLM courses. The NLAT is being conducted in a bid to ensure that the current academic year does not end up being a "zero academic year", depriving students of learning in the country's top legal institution.

Meanwhile, the CLAT is now set to be held on September 28 across India.

The online registration process began on Thursday, September 3, 2020, and will end on September 10, 2020. Candidates belonging to the general category are required to pay an application fee of Rs 150, while SC/ST candidates need to pay Rs 125 as a registration fee.

To apply for the entrance exam candidates must have scored an aggregate percentage of 45 per cent or its equivalent grade in the case of General Category and PWD students in class 12 examination. For SC/ST students the eligibility criteria is an aggregate percentage of 40 per cent or its equivalent grade in class 12 examination.

The NLSIU was recently ranked Bengaluru's best law school by the national institutional ranking framework.

Meanwhile, The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to entertain a petition against domicile reservations in NLSIU. A division bench of the high court presided over by Justices Hima Kohli and Subromonium Prasad observed that the main parties in the petition are the Karnataka government and NLSIU Bengaluru, and refused to entertain the petition.

"Will NLU fight the battle all over the country?" the bench questioned while adding that the petitioner shall approach an appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievances.

However, after the bench passed the observation, Shadan Farasat, counsel for the petitioner, sought permission to withdraw the plea. The court granted him permission to do so and also granted liberty to move the appropriate forum with their grievances.