Maintains A Rational Nexus With Object Of Advancing Regional Educational Development: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Domicile-Based Reservation In NLU Jodhpur

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the domicile-based reservation for students in the National Law University (NLU), Jodhpur

The Jodhpur Bench was dealing with a Writ Petition filed by a 19-year-old girl from West Bengal, seeking to quash the Notification qua reservation of seats in undergraduate and postgraduate courses for Domicile of Rajasthan State as ultra vires the Constitution.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held, “… 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.”

The Bench said 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 of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate General (AG) Rajendra Prasad appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

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. The governance and management of the University are comprehensively provided under the National Law University Jodhpur Act, 1999.

The challenge in this case arose from the issuance of a Notification and the Executive Council’s Resolution by which domicile-based reservation for students from Rajasthan was introduced in admissions to the University. The Petitioner sought to quash the University’s Executive Council’s Resolution qua domicile reservation as ultra vires the 1999 Act. She further sought to declare that the State does not have any power, authority, or control over the autonomy of the NLU.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “In the present case, the State of Rajasthan, through the impugned notification, has merely aligned National Law 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.”

The Court noted that 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 … The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification”, it further remarked.

The Court was of the view that the classification created by the domicile-based reservation policy satisfies both limbs of the twin test laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952).

“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. … 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”, it added.

The Court also noted that the State, while maintaining the national character of the University through CLAT, has simultaneously sought to provide equitable representation to its own students who may otherwise be underrepresented due to socio-economic or geographical disadvantages

“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”, it said.

Furthermore, the Court observed 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 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.

“Thus in view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned action taken by the respondents”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Anindita Biswas v. National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:17453-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates Bhavyadeep Singh, and Vinay Kothari.

Respondents: AG Rajendra Prasad, Advocates Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, and Sheetanshu Sharma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment