Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anindita Biswas vs National Law University, Jodhpur on 10 June, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11442/2023
Anindita Biswas, D/o Krishnendu Biswas, Aged About 19 Years,
R/o 81, Madhusudan Banerjee Rd, Shibachal, Birati, Near Smart
Bazaar, Opposite Of PNB (Birati) Branch, Kolkata, West Bengal
700051
----Petitioner
Versus
1. National Law University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar At
Nh-65, Nagour Road, Mandore, Jodhpur 342304,
Rajasthan
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Jt. Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Consortium Of National Law Universities, Through Its
Secretary At P.o. Bag 7201, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore 560
072 Karnataka, India.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior
Advocate (through V.C.) assisted by
Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh and Mr. Vinay
Kothari.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate
& Advocate General assisted by
Mr.Anirudh Singh Shekhawat and
Mr.Sheetanshu Sharma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on 26/03/2025
Pronounced on 10/06/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (2 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
"(A) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the Notification S.O. 123
dated 26.12.2022 qua reservation of seats in
undergraduate and postgraduate courses for Domicile of
State of Rajasthan as ultra vires the Constitution of India
and ultra vires the National Law University Jodhpur At,
1999;
(B) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
and setting aside the Respondent No.1 University's
Executive Council's Resolution dated 22.01.2022 qua
domicile reservation as ultra vires the National Law
University Jodhpur Act, 1999;
(C) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring
that the Respondent No.2 does not have any power,
authority or control over the autonomy of the
Respondent No.1 University;
(D) Grant any other further relief(s) as may be deemed
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice."
2. Before delving into the instant controversy it is pertinent to
note that, in the 1980s, the Bar Council of India, with a vision to
reform and enhance the quality of legal education in India,
initiated the establishment of model law schools conferred with
university status. These institutions were designed to offer a five-
year integrated Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) course post completion
of higher secondary education (10+2).
2.1. The first such institution, the National Law School of India
University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, was established as a pilot model.
Its success led to a national-level consensus to replicate this
model across various states.
2.2. The strategy was formalized through the Hyderabad
Resolution adopted during a meeting of Law Ministers and Law
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (3 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
Secretaries held from 23rd to 25th November 1995. The
Resolution called for urgent legal education reforms and
recommended the establishment of one National Law University
in each state, intended to serve as a model for legal instruction
and institutional excellence.
2.3. Acting on this recommendation, the National Law University,
Jodhpur was established by the National Law University, Jodhpur
Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1999), which was
notified on 08.10.1999. The University was envisioned to function
as an autonomous legal education and research institution of
national repute.
2.4. Admission to the University is conducted through a
competitive national-level examination, the Common Law
Admission Test (CLAT), in which candidates from all parts of the
country participate. The University offers both Undergraduate
and Postgraduate programmes in law.
2.5. The governance and management of the University are
comprehensively provided under the Act of 1999, which
establishes a detailed statutory framework comprising various
authorities, including:
• The Visitor: The Chief Justice of India or his nominee who
is, for the time being, a judge of the Supreme Court of
India. The visitor has right to call for report on any matter
pertaining to the affairs of the University.
• The Chancellor: Appointed under the Act, the Chief Justice
of the Rajasthan High Court, with powers of institutional
oversight.
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (4 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
• The General Council: The supreme governing body
responsible for providing overall strategic direction to the
University.
• The Executive Council: The chief executive body responsible
for managing the administration and execution of University
policies.
• The Academic Council: The principal academic authority
responsible for regulating academic standards and curricula.
• The Finance Committee: Responsible for financial planning,
budgeting, and oversight of University expenditures.
• Other Statutory Bodies and Committees as may be
constituted under the Act or the Statutes.
2.6. Notably, Rule 9 of the Act of 1999 outlines the statutory
powers of the Visitor and the Chancellor, stating:
"The Chancellor and the Visitor shall have the following
powers, namely: (a) to give direction, take action, or do
anything as required under the provisions of this Act and
the Statutes."
This provision underscores the pivotal role of the Chancellor and
the Visitor in ensuring compliance with statutory provisions,
safeguarding the institutional autonomy of the University, and
overseeing the legality of key decisions--including those involving
policy shifts such as admissions and reservations.
2.7. The present challenge arises from the issuance of
Notification S.O. 123 dated 26.12.2022 and the Executive
Council's Resolution dated 22.01.2022, by which domicile-based
reservation for students from Rajasthan was introduced in
admissions to the University.
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (5 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
3. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh and Mr. Vinay Kothari, appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was a CLAT 2024
aspirant and presently a resident of the State of West Bengal. It
was contended that the petitioner, being an eligible candidate for
admission to National Law Universities through the Common Law
Admission Test (CLAT), stands adversely affected by the
impugned Notification dated 26.12.2022, issued by the State of
Rajasthan, and the Resolution dated 22.01.2022, passed by the
Executive Council of the Respondent No.1 University.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said Notification,
in so far as it provides for reservation of seats in undergraduate
and postgraduate law courses for candidates having domicile of
the State of Rajasthan, is ultra vires the Constitution of India--
particularly Articles 14 and 15, and also ultra vires the provisions
of the National Law University, Jodhpur Act, 1999. He further
argued that the Resolution dated 22.01.2022, by which the
Executive Council implemented the said domicile-based
reservation policy, lacks any statutory basis and is similarly
beyond the powers conferred under the Act of 1999.
3.2. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that professional
education has to have an adequate orientation to promote and
create excellence in the legal field. He further draws the attention
of this Court towards Section 4 of the National Law University,
Jodhpur Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1999'),
which reads as under:
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (6 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
"(4)The Objects of the University.-
(1) The objects of the University shall be to advance and
disseminate learning and knowledge of law and research
and with a view to ensure its proper role in national
development, to develop in the student and research
scholar a sense of responsibility to serve Society in the
field of law by developing skills in regard to advocacy,
Judicial and other legal services, Legislation, law reforms
and the like, to advance the professional education and
also to provide adequate orientation and training to
judicial officers and others who are involved in the
administration of Justice; to impart training and conduct
refresher courses for law teachers, judicial officers,
advocates and other persons engaged or interested in
legal field; to organize lectures, seminars, symposia and
conferences, to promote legal knowledge and to make law
and legal processes efficient instruments of social
development; to hold examinations and confer degrees,
diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions and
to do all such things as are incidental, necessary or
conducive to the attainment of all or any of the objects of
the University.
(2) The University shall be open to all persons of either
sex irrespective of race, creed, caste, class or religion and
it shall not be lawful for the University to impose on any
person any condition whatsoever of religious belief or
profession in order to entitle him to be admitted thereto
as a teacher or a student or to hold any office therein or
to graduate there at or to enjoy or to exercise any
privilege thereof."
3.2.1. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention
of this Court towards the un-amended Statute 12 of the
Schedule to the Act of 1999, which deals with the reservation of
posts and seats and that it speaks of reservation for the
students belonging to the scheduled castes & scheduled tribes
and not for domicile; the said provision reads as under:
"12. Reservation of posts and seats.- The Executive
Council may be regulation provide for reservation in the
admission to undergraduate and post graduate students
in the University exempting super specialty courses, such
number of seats for schedule casts and schedule tribes
students as may be provided in the Regulation.
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (7 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
Provided that the University may enroll applicants
from such categories in a year but not qualifying for
admission in that year into a "one year" preparatory
course at the end of which they may be admitted into the
regular course next year in pursuance of the regulation
provided for the purpose."
3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that providing
domicile-based reservation is in contravention of the purpose and
objects with which the University was established. The un-
amended Statute 12 provided under the Schedule of the Act of
1999 is reflective of the fact that it was never the intention to
provide any such kind of reservation, as the intention of the
policy makers was to establish a University with highest
standards of excellence. Thus, the impugned resolution dated
22.01.2022 and impugned notification will cause irreparable
damage and would alter the very nature and character of the
University.
3.4. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention of
this Court to the Agenda of First Combined Meeting of the
General Council, Executive Council and Academic Council of the
National Law University, Jodhpur, particularly Agenda Item No.7
thereof, where though the reservation is provided, but no
domicile reservation is provided. The said Agenda Item No.7
reads as under:
"Agenda Item No.7: Admission Schedule
As per Section 16(2), the Vice-chancellor has made
the First Ordinance regarding courses of study, admission
procedure, fees etc. with the approval of the State Govt.
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (8 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
In compliance of the same we have started
supplying prospectus and application forms. The last date
for filing filled in application forms is May 15, 2001.
National Entrance Test will be held on June 3, 3001.
Admissions will be strictly merit based. The admissions
shall be closed by July 14, 2001.
Statute 12(1) reads that the Executive Council
may be regulation provide for the reservation of
seats for the students of Rajasthan State belonging
to S.C. and S.T. and Other Backward Classes. We
have reserved 15% seats for students belonging to
S.C. and 7.5% seats for students belonging to S.T.
Statute 15(e) provides power to Academic Council
to appoint committees for admission to the University.
Matter is submitted before the Council for
decision."
3.4.1. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention
of this Court to the proceedings of XXIII Meeting of the
Academic Council of the National Law University, Jodhpur,
whereby it was resolved to constitute a Committee under the
Chairmanship of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manju Goel, Former Judge,
Delhi High Court; with Prof. K. Elumalai and Prof. S.K. Kaushik
and other Members to look into the issue threadbare and give
their appropriate recommendations.
3.4.2. Learned Senior Counsel has thereafter drawn the
attention of this Court to the report submitted by the aforesaid
Committee for providing opinion and advice regarding feasibility
and desirability of 25% reservation in admission for Rajasthan
State domicile students. The concluding part of the Committee
Report reads as follows:
"45. The above analysis of facts clearly indicates that the
RSDS are as meritorious, if not more, compared to the
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (9 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
students of the rest of the country. Reserving seats in
NLUJ for RSDS is against the very concept of Affirmative
action which his required to provide substantive equality
to the weaker sections or for the underrepresented.
Accordingly, State reservation on the ground of
backwardness cannot be justified. Rajasthani students
are neither weaker nor underrepresented so as to justify
any positive discrimination in their favour.
46. The other ground for state reservations, namely, the
interest of the state is also not attracted here. As
mentioned earlier, the law colleges in Rajasthan provide
more than 6000 seats for the study of LL.B. 15 of the law
colleges are government-run which can be expected to
be fully equipped with all facilities including adequate and
qualified teaching faculty. It is not the case of the
government of Rajasthan that the number of law
graduates qualifying from the various law colleges in
Rajasthan is not sufficient to meet the requirement of the
Rajasthan Bar and Bench.
47. Suggestion 1 : The Committee, therefore, strongly
feels that the RSDS do not need any reservation to get
into NLUJ in even larger numbers.
48. Suggestion 2: The steps taken by Maharashtra,
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to enhance the opportunities
for their own students are laudable. The government of
Rajasthan may well follow their example and set up more
NLUs or State Law Universities instead of looking for
State reservation in NLUJ. This is more so because as
pointed out below state quota may have serious financial
consequences for NLUJ.
49. Suggestion 3: Alternatively, the State may set up
colleges affiliated to NLUJ in which case the faculty of
NLUJ may be taken as visiting faculty in those affiliated
colleges. This will give exposure to a greater number of
Rajasthani students to the teaching-learning pedagogy
followed in NLU Jodhpur without compromising on the
standards of NLU Jodhpur.
50. Suggestion 4: The Committee, however, suggests
that in the unlikely event of number of the RSDS
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (10 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
qualifying for NLUJ (of all categories taken together) fall
below 25%, NLUJ may at the time of allotment of seats
provide another kind of Affirmative action by granting 5
extra points (or marks) to them. In this manner, NLUJ
will admit more students from Rajasthan without
compromising on merit or the valued diversity. This, the
Committee reiterates, is not the reservation of 25%
seats, yet, ensures adequate representation for RSDS.
For the sake of clarity, the Committee wants to
emphasize that if even after giving 5 extra marks to the
Rajasthani students, the total seats filled by them remain
less than 25% they shall not be entitled to any further
relaxation. The criteria to identify RSDS will have to be
worked out by the University.
51. Suggestion 5: The NLUD has recently provided a
50% quota to the students from Delhi. However, that
institute has kept the number of admissions on merit the
same as before by increasing the total number of seats
by 50%. If NLUJ must increase the seats by 25% and yet
do not reduce the number of open seats going on merit,
it also has to increase the number of total seats. This,
however, has serious financial consequences. NLUD has
been able to enhance the number of seats as the
government of Delhi is financing the building of
infrastructure including high rise buildings for classrooms
and residence etc. The Committee is told that, in case,
the number of students has to increase, NLUJ will need
to raise new buildings for classrooms as well as for
hostels as the present infrastructure is hardly sufficient
to meet the current need. The classrooms, particularly,
cannot accommodate any further students. NLUJ does
not receive any grant from the government of Rajasthan.
The running cost is met entirely by the University from
its own sources which are, primarily, from the tuition
fees received from the students.
52. NLUJ may grant 25% state reservation without
reducing the existing number of All India Open Seats
available for admission on merit subject to creating
additional infrastructure, additional staff, and faculty.
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (11 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
Whether NLUJ can raise such infrastructure will depend
on the willingness of the present and future students to
bear the additional load of the cost of infrastructure and
facilities required to accommodate 25% more students.
It is for the University to work out the cost of the
additional infrastructure and the per capita increase in
the tuition fee before it embarks upon granting
reservation as demand by the government of Rajasthan.
53. As stated in para 50, the University, in that case, has
to settle the criteria for identifying the RSDS. We are also
of the opinion that the qualifying marks should not be
reduced to fill such quota and the issue of how to fill the
unfilled reserved seats of this category will be
determined by the University.
Conclusion
54. At the cost of repetition, this Committee has to
reiterate that the National Law University, Jodhpur Act,
1999 does not postulate any reservation other than for
Scs/Sts and does not enable the government to introduce
any scheme of the reservation into NLUJ. The provisions
of the Act being what they are, only suggestions 1, 2, 3
and 4 can be considered."
3.4.3. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of
this Court towards Agenda No.11 of 25th Meeting of the
Academic Council of the University, whereby the Committee
Report was considered in the following manner:
11 To report constitution of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manju Goel
Hon'ble Ms. Justice (Retd.) mentioned that draft-report was
Manju Goel Committee to almost final for submission.
submit it's report regarding However, due to recent
feasibility and desirability for development regarding reservation
implementation of the 25% in NLU, Delhi and NLSIU,
seats reservation for Bangalore, the Committee is
Rajasthan State domicile required to make appropriate
students for National Law modifications in this regard.
University, Jodhpur. Further, she mentioned that there
are some other factors such as
increase in total number of seats
required for implementation of
reservation policy, finances
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (12 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
required to cater the increase
seats and to provide infrastructural
facilities in this regard are also
required to be taken care. She
mentioned that before taking a
policy decision in this regard, there
are some differences amongst the
other Law Schools and NLU,
Jodhpur.
Shri Suresh Shrimali mentioned
that one year have already
completed the matter should be
decided as there is expectation
among all the concerned.
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manju Goel
recognized but clarified that such
decision should not be taken
superficially and all the technical
and practical aspect should be
considered so that there should
not be any lacuna while
implementation of he same. She
mentioned that as per the data
provided by the University, around
47 students of Rajasthan domicile
are taking admission in NLU,
Jodhpur. Further, the students from
Rajasthan are also taking
admission in all other Law Schools
of India which is an appreciable
fact. Further, the national
character of this University should
not be compromised also.
Prof. K. Elumalia mentioned that
since around 47 students are
already taking admission in the
University, additional 25 students
will exceed the guidelines set by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court for
maximum reservation.
Prof. S.K. Kaushik mentioned that
in the light of the agenda item
proposal regarding establishment
of a separate NLU, Jodhpur branch
at Jaipur may be considered in this
regard. NLIU Bhopal, DSNLU and
three NLUs in Maharashtra are
precedents for the same. Required
reservation may e provided in
them.
Shri Suresh Shrimali
mentioned that with all
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (13 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
concern discussed decision
regarding grant of state
domicile reservation should be
taken soon and Hon'ble
Members of the Committee
may be requested to submit
the report as soon as possible
and meeting of Academic
Council may be called again
accordingly.
It was resolved that as soon as the
report is submitted by the
Committee, matter may be placed
before the house for decision.
Meanwhile, requirement of
infrastructural, faculty and finances
may be calculated for submission
of proposal to State Government.
3.4.4. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of
this Court towards Agenda No.15 of proceedings of XXXIII
(Virtual) Meeting of the Executive Council, which reads as
follows:
15 To discuss report of Hon'ble Ms. The report was not discussed
Justice (Retd.) Manju Goel as Shri S.C. Shrimali rejected
Committee regarding feasibility it.
and desirability for Hon'ble Vice Chancellor
implementation of the 25% seats brought to the notice of the
reservation for Rajasthan State Members, a representation
domicile students in National Law filed by the students/Alumni of
University, Jodhpur. the University. She also pointed
and` out that to implement the
To consider various letters issued reservation policy, University
by the State Government to would need additional
implement reservation in infrastructure for class-rooms /
admission for domicile students hostels and requested the
as well as for the other Backward State Government for providing
Classes in UG/PG Courses. financial assistance in this
regard.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep
Mehta considered this request
and keeping in view future
requirements, suggested the
authorities of State for
allotment of additional land to
the University, apart from
providing funds for
infrastructural requirement. He
further opined that SC, ST and
OBC category reservation is
vertical and State domicile
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (14 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
reservation is horizontal.
With regard to OBC
reservation, it was pointed out
that 21% reservation is
provided for OBC category
candidates and 5% reservation
is provided for MBC category
candidates.
The proposal for 25%
horizontal domicile
reservation and 21% + 5%
OBC reservation was
approved.
3.4.5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that at the
inception of the University and in the initial phase of the
University, providing domicile-based reservation was never
intended. Infact, in the First Combined Meeting of the General
Council, Executive Council and Academic Council of the National
Law University, Jodhpur, the decision of not granting domicile-
based reservation was arrived at. Subsequently, in the XXIII
Meeting of the Academic Council, a committee was formed to
analyze the feasibility and desirability of 25% of domicile-
reservation and give recommendations. The report of the
Committee came to the conclusion that an institute of such
eminence does not need domicile-based reservation and
suggested alternative ways to promote the interest of rajasthani
students. The Academic Council of the University upon
presentation of the aforementioned report suggested to send the
same to the State Government for consideration. However, the
said report was not given due credence, and thereafter, in the
25th Meeting of the Academic Council of the University, on the
Agenda of domicile-based reservation, it was decided that the
decision should be taken at the earliest, but at the same time,
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (15 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
as the matter is policy-based, all factors regarding the same
should be considered thoroughly. However, in the XXXIII
(Virtual) Meeting of the Executive Council the decision to grant
domicile based reservation was arrived at as stated above.
3.5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in order to
fulfill the aforementioned objectives of the University, certain
authorities have been established, which have been mentioned
under Section 10 of the Act of 1999. The same is reproduced
hereunder:
"10. Authorities of the University.- The following shall
be the authorities of the University, namely:-
1. the General Council;
2. the Executive Council;
3. the Academic Council;
4. the Finance Committee; and
5. such other authorities as may be prescribed by the
Regulations."
3.5.1 Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn this Courts
attention to Section 17 of the Act of 1999 which provides that
without prior concurrence of the Academic Council, the Executive
Council shall not make any amendment with regard to the issue
of mode of enrollment or admission of students. Section 17 of
the Act of 1999 is reproduced as under:
"17. Regulations.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Executive
Council shall have, in addition to all the other powers
vested in it, the power to frame regulations to provide for
the administration and management of the affairs of the
University:
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (16 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
Provided that the Executive Council shall not make any
regulation affecting the status, powers or constitution of
any authority of the University until such authority has
been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in
writing on the proposed changes, and any opinion so
expressed is considered by the Executive Council:
Provided further that except with the prior concurrence of
the Academic Council, the Executive Council shall not
make, amend or repeal any regulation affecting any or all
of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the constitution, powers and duties of the Academic
Council;
(b) the persons responsible for organizing teaching in
connection with the courses of study and related
academic programmes;
(c) the withdrawal of degrees, diplomas, certificates and
other academic distinctions;
(d) the establishment and abolition of faculties,
departments, hall and institution;
(e) the institution of fellowships, scholarships,
studentship, medals and prizes;
(f) conditions and modes of appointment of examiners or
conduct of or standard of examinations or any other
course of study;
(g) mode of enrollment or admission of students;
and
(h) examinations to be recognized as equivalent to
University examinations.
(2) The Academic Council shall have the power to
propose regulations on all the matters specified in
(a) to (h) above and matter incidental and related
thereto."
3.5.2. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention of
this Court to Statute 15 of the Schedule to the Act of 1999,
which provides for the powers and duties of the Academic
Council and the same has been reproduced hereunder:
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (17 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
"15. Powers and duties of the Academic Council.-
Subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations, the
Academic Council shall, in addition to all other powers
vested in it, have the following powers, namely:-
(a) to report on any matter referred or delegated to it by
the General Council or the Executive Council;
(b) to make arrangements through regulations for the
instruction and examination of persons other than those
enrolled in the University;
(c) to promote research within the University and to
require from time to time, reports on such research; (d)
to consider proposals submitted by the faculties; (e) to
appoint committees for admission to the University;
(f) to recognize diplomas and degrees and other
Universities and institution and to determine their
equivalence in relation to the diplomas and degrees of the
University;
(g) to fix, subject to any conditions accepted by the
General Council, the time, mode and conditions of
competition for fellowship, scholarships and other prizes,
and to award the same;
(h) to make recommendations to the Executive Council in
regard to the appointment of examiners and if necessary
their removal and the fixation of their fees, emoluments
and travelling and other expenses;
(i) to make arrangements for the conduct of examinations
and to fix dates for holding them;
(j) to declare result of the various examinations, or to
appoint committees or officers to do so and to make
recommendations regarding the conferment or grant of
degrees, honors, diplomas, titles and marks of honor;
(k) to award stipends, scholarships, medals and prizes
and to make other awards in accordance with the
regulations and such other conditions as may be attached
to the awards;
(l) to publish lists of prescribed or recommended text-
books and to publish syllabus or the prescribed courses of
study;
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (18 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
(m) to prepare such forms and registers as are, from time
to time prescribed by regulations; and
(n) to perform, in relation to academic matters, all such
duties and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the
proper carrying out of the provisions of this Act and the
regulations."
3.5.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per the
above-mentioned provision, i.e., Section 17 and the Statute-15,
the power to make alteration to the mode of enrollment in the
University can be done only by the Academic Council and thus,
impugned resolution dated 22.01.2022 and the impugned
notification, whereby the reservation of seats in under-graduate
and post-graduate courses for domicile for state of Rajasthan is
introduced, has been passed by-passing the actual competent
authority, hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3.6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the analogy
of 'Statutes' contained in the Schedule, requirements provided
under the various provisions of the Act of 1999, subsequent
ordinances, and decisions of the various meetings shows that
the University does not require domicile reservation, and
providing any such reservation is contrary to law.
3.7. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the impugned
notification is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
as the impugned notification has created a classification on the
basis of domicile but fails the test of reasonability settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
3.7.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that providing
domicile based reservation will take away the very purpose for
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (19 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
which an all-India based entrance test, i.e., CLAT, is conducted.
It was contended that the said examination is conducted to
provide a level playing field to all the aspirants irrespective of
their region, and the constitutionally valid reservation are
already granted to these aspirant, and thus the domicile based
reservation will strip away the equality of opportunity and level
playing field of the students desirous of studying in a National
Law University.
3.7.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a
classification on the basis of residence, i.e., domicile-based
reservation, in education institutions should not be based on
some broad generalization, artificial differentiation and irrelevant
assumptions. It was contended that studies and surveys should
have been conducted so as to determine whether such
reservation is at all needed. The Learned Senior Counsel brought
to the notice of this Court, the report dated 06.03.2020,
prepared by the Committee chaired by Hon'ble Justice Manju
Goel (Retd), whereby it was concluded that neither the Act of
1999 posulates for domicile based reservation, nor is there any
requirement of introducing domicile based reservation, and the
said conclusion was arrived at on the basis of data and detailed
analysis on the following heads :-
1. No. of students of Rajasthan in the University and at
other NLUs
2. Affirmative Action and Equality
3. Genesis of the University
It was submitted that the report opined that as per the data
(Annexure P-11Colly) the students of rajasthan are already
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (20 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
sufficiently represented in the NLUs, and the state of Rajasthan
is not a backward state in respect of education, thus, the
provision of reservation does not have a reasonable nexus with
the object sought to be achieved by it. Thus, it was submitted
that the said reservation is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable,
capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3.8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the domicile
based reservation intended to be brought in through the
impugned notification is vaugue as reservation for "domicile of
state of Rajasthan", does not prescribes any policy regarding the
specific class of persons for whom such reservation is intended.
3.9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that impugned
amendment is ultra vires Article 15 of the Constitution of India
as the reservation under undergraduate and post- graduate
courses for "Domicile of State of Rajasthan" does not seeks to
advance the cause of "socially and educationally backward
classes" as all the students of Rajasthan cannot be considered
socially and educationally backward without emprical data or
research. It was further submitted that the sine qua non for
bringing a reservation policy is a prior history of discrimination
against a disadvantaged section or class, which in instant case is
not made evident by presenting any data or research.
3.10. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
interference by the State Government in the administrative
process of the University, including admissions is perils the spirit
of functional autonomy of the University under the Act. It was
contended that the directions issued by the university to
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (21 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
formulate a reservation policy for Rajasthan based candidates is
a serious interference in the affairs of the University.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior
Counsel & Advocate General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh
Shekhawat and Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the question of
reservation was a policy matter, and thus is within the domain of
state government.
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that domicile based
reservation in not a new concept and almost all the National Law
Universities in the country are providing reservation of seats on
the basis of the domicile of the State which varies from state to
state, and the list of such Universities in details is avaiable on
record as Annexure-R/1.
4.2. Learned Advocate General further submitted that except
for the State of Rajasthan, since the domicile reservation has
been provided, due to which the students of Rajasthan are
suffering the lack of specialized education from the National Law
University, Jodhpur. He also submitted that various
representations were made to the State of Rajasthan, and thus,
the proceedings were initiated for providing reservation of 25%
to the domicile of the Rajasthan State in the National Law
University, Jodhpur. It was submitted that in pursuance of the
said representations the Committee was constituted in
pursuance of the letter dated 14.03.2018, under the
Chairmanship of Hon'ble Ms. Justice (Retd.) Manju Goel on
10.07.2018.
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (22 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
4.3. Learned Advocate General also submitted that exercising
the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Act of 1999, the
Hon'ble Chancellor of the University vide Notification dated
26.12.2022 amended the Statute 12 (Part of the Schedule to the
Act of 1999) permitting reservation of seats in admission for the
domicile of the State of Rajasthan to the extent of 25% in the
admission to Undergraduate and Postgraduate Courses in the
University. Thus, the reservation in question has been provided
after following the due process of law.
4.4. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the
provision for State domicile reservation has been upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Saurabh Chaudri Vs.
Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, relevant portion whereof
reads as under:
"67. This Court may therefore notice the following :
(i) The State runs the Universities.
(ii) It has to spend a lot of money in imparting medical
education to the students of the State.
(iii) Those who get admission in Post Graduate Courses are
also required to be paid stipends. Reservation of some seats
to a reasonable extent, thus, would not violate the equality
clause.
(iv) The criteria for institutional preference has now come to
stay. It has worked out satisfactorily in most of the States for
last about two decades.
(v) Even those States which defied the decision of this Court
in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) had realized the need for
institutional preference.
(vi) No sufficient material has been brought on record for
departing from this well-established admission criteria.
(vii) It goes beyond any cavil of doubt that institutional
preference is based on a reasonable and identifiable
classification. It may be that while working out the
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (23 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
percentage of reservation invariably some local
students will have preference having regard to the fact
that domicile/residence was one of the criteria for
admission in MBBS Course. But together with the local
students 15%, students who had competed in all India
Entrance Examination would also be getting the same
benefit. The percentage of students who were to get the
benefit of reservation by way of institutional preference
would further go down if the decision of this Court in Dr.
Pradeep Jain's case (supra) is scrupulously followed.
(viii) Giving of such a preference is a matter of State policy
which can be invalidated only in the event of being violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(ix) The students who would get the benefit of institutional
preference being on identifiable ground, there is hardly any
scope
(x) for manipulation."
4.5. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the
amendment of the Statute No.12, as per the powers conferred
by Section 15 of the Act of 1999, is perfectly in accordance with
law and no such point has been shown by the petitioner which
could prejudice her.
4.6. Learned Advocate General also submitted that the National
Law Universities are the peculiar platform as CLAT organizes a
common examination and gives quality education to the law
students, however once all the 21 Universities are providing
domicile benefits and the same ought to have been extended in
the State of Rajasthan, and thus, the reservation in question is
in accordance with law, and thus, call for no interference.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (24 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
the Bar, as also the examination of Sections 4, 10, 12, 15 of the
Act of 1999 and the various other proceedings, which include the
amendment in Statute 12 of the Act of 1999 vide amendment
Notification dated 26.12.2022, finds that domicile reservation in
question is in accordance with law, and that the State domicile
reservation is a policy matter which is in the domain of State
Government. Furthermore, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Saurabh Chaudri (supra), has also upheld the proposition
of domicile reservation.
6. This Court also finds that the process for reservation in
question was going on since the year 2018 and after complete
consideration, the domicile reservation for Rajasthan students
has been granted.
7. Furthermore, this Court finds that it is evident 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. 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.
8. This Court further finds that the 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 the "Statutes" mentioned hereinbefore has
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (25 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
been provided under the Schedule to the said Act. The said
Section 15 reads as follows:
"15. Statutes.- (1) The Statutes of the University shall
contain such instructions, directions, procedures and
details as are necessary to be laid down under and in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The Statutes as contained in the Schedule to this Act
as amended from time to time, shall be binding on all
authorities, officers, teachers and employees of the
University and persons connected with the University.
(3) Executive Council shall have all powers to make any
amendments in the statutes contained in the Schedule to
this Act:
Provided that the Executive Council shall not amend
Statute affecting the constitution, status or power of any
authority of the University without affording to such
authority a reasonable opportunity of making a
representation on the proposed changes.
(4) Any amendments to the Statutes, whether by adding,
deleting or in any other manner, shall not take effect
unless the Chancellor has, after consultation with the
State Government, assented to it. The Chancellor may
after the said consultation and on being satisfied that
assent be not given, withhold assent or return the
proposal for amendment to the Executive Council for re-
consideration in the light of observation, if any, made by
him.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3)
or sub-section (4) the Chancellor shall have power to
amend, after consultation with the State Government,
whether by adding, deleting, or in any other manner, the
Statutes contained in the Schedule.
(6) An amendment to the Statutes shall come into force
on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette."
9. Further, this Court finds that the Executive Council of the
University, as the designated academic and administrative
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (26 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
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. The policy in question falls within
the permissible limits of institutional autonomy and does not
demonstrate any violation of the constitutional rights of the
petitioner.
10. This Court also takes notice of the fact that a majority of
National Law Universities (NLUs) established across various
States in India have adopted domicile-based reservation policies.
These policies are typically framed in accordance with the
objectives of their respective establishing statutes, which
emphasize the promotion of legal education both at the national
and regional levels. A table of the extent of domicile based
reservation provided by the various NLUs is produced
hereunder :-
S. NO. NLU Name CLAT UG 2025 CLAT PG 2025
Domicile Domicile
Reservation Reservation
1 NLSIU 25.00% 25.00%
Bengaluru
2 NALSAR 25.00% 25.00%
Hyderabad
3 NLIU Bhopal 50.00% 50.00%
4 WBNUJS Kolkata 31% (BA LLB 30.00%
Hons.)
28% (BSc LLB
Hons)
5 NLU Jodhpur 30.00% 29.00%
6 HNLU Raipur 50.00% 50.00%
7 GNLU 25.00% 25.00%
Gandhinagar
8 GNLU Silvassa 25.00% 25.00%
9 RMLNLU 30.00% Not explicitly
Lucknow stated (Implied
category-
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (27 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
specific)
10 RGNUL Patiala 10.00% Not explicitly
stated (Implied
category-
specific)
11 CNLU Patna 50.00%
12 NUALS Kochi 41.00% Not explicitly
stated (Implied
category-
specific)
13 NLU Odisha 25.00% 25.00%
14 NUSRL Ranchi 50.00% 50.00%
15 NLUJ Assam 5 Seats 62.50%
16 DSNLU 48.00% 48.00%
Visakhapatnam
17 TNNLU Trichy 50.00% 50.00%
18 MNLU Mumbai 72.00% 72.00%
19 MNLU Nagpur 62.00% Not explicitly
stated (Implied
category-
specific)
20 MNLU 72.00% 72.00%
Aurangabad
21 HPNLU Shimla 25.00% Not explicitly
stated (Implied
category-
specific)
22 DNLU Jabalpur 50.00% Not explicitly
stated (Implied
category-
specific)
23 DBRANLU 20.00%Not Not explicitly
Sonepat explicitly stated stated (Implied
(Implied category-
category- specific)
specific)
24 NLU Tripura 63.00% 66.00%
25 RPNLU Prayagraj Category- 60.00%
specific (e.g.,
SC, OBC-NCL,
EWS of UP)
11. In the present case, the State of Rajasthan, through the
impugned notification, has merely aligned National Law
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (28 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
University, Jodhpur with the normative structure followed by its
sister NLUs across the country. In doing so, the State has neither
acted arbitrarily nor has it breached the statutory scheme under
the National Law University, Jodhpur Act, 1999.
12. The adoption of such reservation provisions reflects a
consistent and evolving national policy framework, whereby
States establishing and funding NLUs seek to balance the
institution's national character with the need to ensure
accessibility for local students. Notably, such domicile-based
reservations are in consonance with the equality code under
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
13. The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution
prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification.
For a classification to be constitutionally valid, it must satisfy the
twin test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1 SCC 1:
1.Intelligible differentia: The classification must be founded
on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes those
included in the class from those who are left out; and
2.Rational nexus: The differentia must have a rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation or
executive policy.
14. Applying this standard to the present case, this Court finds
that the classification created by the domicile-based reservation
policy satisfies both limbs of the test.
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (29 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
15. First, 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.
16. Second, the object sought to be achieved by the impugned
notification and resolution is to promote access to quality legal
education for students belonging to the State that established,
funds, and supports the University. This object is not only
legitimate but also bears a direct and reasonable nexus with the
reservation policy. The State, while maintaining the national
character of the University through the Common Law Admission
Test (CLAT), has simultaneously sought to provide equitable
representation to its own students who may otherwise be
underrepresented due to socio-economic or geographical
disadvantages.
17. Hence, 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 classification created is neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory, but rather furthers a legitimate
public purpose within the framework of the Constitution.
Moreover, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (30 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
implementing a reasonable classification in favor of its own
domiciled students, especially where such classification is rooted
in geographical or socio-educational considerations and is
implemented through a transparent, statutory process.
18. Further support for the validity of such classification can be
found in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, where
the Court recognized the permissibility of domicile-based
preferences in admissions to higher educational institutions,
particularly where the institutions are established and maintained
by a State. The Court observed:
"If creatively and imaginatively applied, preferential
treatment based on residence in a backward region can play
a significant role in reducing uneven levels of development
and such preferential treatment would presumably satisfy the
test of Article 14, because it would be calculated to redress
the existing imbalance between different regions in the
State."
19. In light of the above, this Court finds that the reservation
policy introduced by the State of Rajasthan and implemented by
the Respondent University does not offend Article 14 of the
Constitution. The classification 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 through CLAT.
20. Thus in view of the above, this Court does not find any
illegality in the impugned action taken by the respondents.
[2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB] (31 of 31) [CW-11442/2023]
21. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
