Domicile Reservation in a National University is a State Policy Matter & Doesn't Violate Art. 14 if Nexus is Legitimate: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-06-10

Rajasthan High Court Upholds 25% Domicile Reservation at NLU Jodhpur, Citing State Policy and National Trend

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a challenge to the introduction of a 25% domicile reservation at the National Law University (NLU), Jodhpur, affirming that such a measure is a legitimate policy decision of the State and does not violate the constitutional principle of equality.

A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that the reservation for students from Rajasthan satisfies the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution and aligns with the prevalent practice across most National Law Universities in India.

---

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by Anindita Biswas , a CLAT aspirant from West Bengal, who challenged the NLU Jodhpur Executive Council's resolution and a subsequent State Government notification that introduced a 25% horizontal reservation for candidates domiciled in Rajasthan .

The petitioner argued that the move was unconstitutional and contrary to the NLU Jodhpur Act, 1999, which established the university as an autonomous institution of national repute. The core contention was that such a reservation would dilute the university's national character, which is built on merit-based admissions through the all-India Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing the petitioner, argued forcefully that the domicile quota was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Key arguments included:

- Violation of National Character: The reservation undermines the very purpose of NLUs, which were conceived to be centers of excellence drawing talent from across the country.

- Procedural Irregularity: The decision was allegedly made without the mandatory "prior concurrence" of the Academic Council as required by Section 17 of the NLU Act for changes in admission modes.

- Lack of Justification: A committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge, Justice Manju Goel , had previously concluded that such a reservation was unnecessary, as students from Rajasthan were already well-represented in NLU Jodhpur. The committee suggested alternative measures to promote legal education in the state.

- No Reasonable Nexus: The classification based on domicile was not founded on empirical data showing that Rajasthan i students were disadvantaged or underrepresented.

Respondents' Defence: Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, appearing for the State and the University, countered that the reservation was a valid policy decision. His key submissions were:

- State's Prerogative: The State of Rajasthan , as the establishing and funding authority, has a right to formulate policies that benefit its students.

- Precedent Across NLUs: Almost all other NLUs in the country have domicile-based reservation, and its absence in Rajasthan placed local students at a disadvantage.

- Legal Validity: The amendment to the University's statutes was carried out legally under Section 15 of the NLU Act. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in cases like Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India has upheld institutional and domicile-based preferences.

High Court's Reasoning and Decision

The High Court sided with the respondents, finding no illegality in the introduction of the domicile quota. The bench emphasized that the measure was a policy matter within the State's domain and was supported by established legal principles.

The Court observed, "The State of Rajasthan , being the establishing and funding authority of the University, has issued the impugned notification in exercise of its policy prerogative to promote access to legal education for students domiciled in the State. The said action is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional per se, particularly in light of judicial precedents which have upheld domicile-based reservations in educational institutions established and maintained by a particular State."

The judgment applied the two-pronged test for reasonable classification under Article 14:

1. Intelligible Differentia : The Court found a clear difference between candidates from Rajasthan and those from other states.

2. Rational Nexus: It held that the policy's objective—to promote access to quality legal education for local students—was legitimate and had a direct connection to the reservation.

The bench also noted that a majority of NLUs have similar policies, and Rajasthan 's decision merely aligns NLU Jodhpur with this "normative structure."

Rejecting the argument of arbitrariness, the Court stated, "The petitioner, though an aspirant for admission through CLAT 2024, has not demonstrated any vested right or legitimate expectation that stands violated by the policy. The principles of equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution do not bar a State-funded university from implementing a reasonable classification in favor of its own domiciled students..."

Final Verdict and Implications

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court conclusively upheld the 25% domicile reservation at NLU Jodhpur. The ruling reinforces the power of state governments in shaping admission policies of state-established national institutions, balancing the goal of national excellence with regional aspirations.