25 Percent Domicile Quota at NLU Jodhpur Upheld | Rajasthan HC Says Institutional Rules Cannot Override State-Mandated Reservation
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that the 25% reservation in admissions at the National Law University, Jodhpur, for students domiciled in Rajasthan is constitutionally valid. The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the said reservation and ruled that the policy is “neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional” and falls within the prerogative of the State Government. It further directed that the process followed by the State and the University was legally compliant and consistent with precedent on domicile-based reservations.
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a candidate who appeared for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2024, contesting the notification dated 26.12.2022 and the Executive Council resolution dated 22.01.2022, which introduced 25% domicile-based reservation in undergraduate and postgraduate courses at National Law University (NLU), Jodhpur.
The petitioner, a resident of West Bengal, argued that the domicile reservation was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and ultra vires the National Law University, Jodhpur Act, 1999. It was contended that the impugned notification and resolution lacked statutory backing and were passed without following due process, especially bypassing the role of the Academic Council, which under the Act of 1999 has the authority to regulate the mode of student admissions.
Relying on Section 4 of the Act, the petitioner submitted that the objectives of the University were to serve a national mandate in legal education, and that the unamended Statute 12 allowed reservation only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, not for domicile. It was argued that the State Government lacked any controlling authority over the academic autonomy of the University.
A report submitted by a committee chaired by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Manju Goel was also placed on record, which concluded that domicile reservation was not essential or justified, and proposed alternate methods to support students from Rajasthan. The report suggested that Rajasthani students were already adequately represented at NLU Jodhpur and in other NLUs, and that the University’s infrastructure might be strained by increased admissions.
The petitioner also cited meetings of the Academic and Executive Councils that initially questioned the reservation’s feasibility and noted practical challenges like financial burden and the absence of funding from the State Government. The resolution for implementing the reservation was passed in a virtual Executive Council meeting, despite objections and concerns from some members.
The State Government and the University opposed the petition. They submitted that the reservation was implemented following the amendment of Statute 12 under powers granted by Section 15 of the Act, with due approval from the Chancellor and after consultation with the State Government. It was argued that similar domicile reservations existed in most other National Law Universities across India.
The respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, to assert the legality of institutional and domicile preference in educational admissions, provided such classification meets the test of Article 14.
It was submitted that the State of Rajasthan, which established the University, holds the prerogative to frame educational policies in its institutions, and that the amendment aligned the University’s admission structure with national norms.
The Court recorded that “domicile reservation in question is in accordance with law” and further held that “State domicile reservation is a policy matter which is in the domain of State Government.” It noted that the decision followed a long deliberative process dating back to 2018.
It was observed that “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.”
On statutory compliance, the Court stated: “Section 15 of the Act of 1999 provides that ‘Statutes’ shall contain such instructions, directions, procedures and details laid down in accordance with the Act of 1999,” and further noted that amendments to Statute 12 were made in accordance with law.
The Court rejected the argument that the Executive Council acted ultra vires by not involving the Academic Council, stating: “The Executive Council of the University, as the designated academic and administrative authority under the Act of 1999, has passed the resolution in accordance with the powers conferred upon it under Section 15 read with Statute 12 of the Act.”
Addressing the constitutional challenge under Article 14, the Court found that “the classification created by the domicile-based reservation policy satisfies both limbs of the test” laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1.
It elaborated: “The classification between candidates domiciled in Rajasthan and those from other States is based on a clear and intelligible differentia—namely, the permanent residence and socio-educational affiliation of the candidate with the State of Rajasthan.”
On the rational nexus test, the Court recorded: “The object sought to be achieved…is to promote access to quality legal education for students belonging to the State that established, funds, and supports the University.”
The Court also considered the broader context of national practice, noting: “A majority of National Law Universities (NLUs) established across various States in India have adopted domicile-based reservation policies.”
Addressing the petitioner's claim of prejudice, the Court concluded: “The petitioner…has not demonstrated any vested right or legitimate expectation that stands violated by the policy.”
The Court cited Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, to support the proposition that State-maintained educational institutions can implement domicile-based preferences.
The Division Bench, after considering the statutory framework, judicial precedents, and submissions of the parties, recorded that in view of the analysis and conclusions reached, there was no illegality found in the action taken by the respondents.
The Court specifically held that the reservation policy introduced by the State of Rajasthan and implemented by the National Law University, Jodhpur, through the impugned notification and resolution, does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
It was observed that the classification created under the policy is reasonable, non-arbitrary, and maintains a rational nexus with the object of advancing regional educational development while retaining the overall national character of admissions conducted through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).
The Court concluded that the reservation policy is a constitutionally valid exercise of the State’s discretion in educational matters and does not fall foul of Article 14.
The Court stated that the classification is not arbitrary or discriminatory, but instead furthers a legitimate public purpose within the framework of the Constitution.
It further recorded that the petitioner, being an aspirant for admission through CLAT 2024, had not demonstrated any vested right or legitimate expectation that was violated by the policy.
The judgment clarified that the principles of equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution do not bar a State-funded university from implementing a reasonable classification in favour of its own domiciled students, particularly where such classification is based on geographical or socio-educational considerations and is implemented through a transparent, statutory process.
The Division Bench held that, in light of the above findings, it did not find any illegality in the impugned action taken by the respondents.
The Court concluded that the statutory process had been complied with and the policy did not contravene constitutional provisions.
The Court issued its final order, stating that the present writ petition stands dismissed. It further directed that all pending applications arising out of or relating to the petition also stand disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) assisted by Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh and Mr. Vinay Kothari
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate & Advocate General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
Case Title : Anindita Biswas v. National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11442/2023
Bench: Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
[Read/Download order]
