Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by petitioner, a resident of West Bengal and a CLAT 2024 aspirant, challenging the constitutional validity of Notification S.O. 123 dated 26-12-2022 issued by the State of Rajasthan and the Resolution dated 22-01-2022 passed by the Executive Council of National Law University (NLU), Jodhpur, thereby introducing a 25% horizontal domicile-based reservation in undergraduate and postgraduate law programs at NLU Jodhpur, a Division Bench of Pushpendra Singh Bhati* and Chandra Prakash Shrimali, JJ., upheld the validity of the impugned notification and resolution introducing domicile-based reservation.
Issue in hand
The main issues in the instant matter are—
- Whether the State of Rajasthan and NLU Jodhpur have the legislative and administrative authority to introduce domicile-based reservation?
- Whether such reservation violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India?
-
Is the impugned policy contrary to the objects and statutory scheme of the National Law University, Jodhpur Act, 1999 (NLU Jodhpur Act)?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the impugned notification and resolution was “ultra vires the Constitution” and “contrary to the intent of establishing a national-level legal education institution,” i.e., Articles 14 and 15 and the NLU Jodhpur Act. The petitioner emphasised that the domicile reservation failed the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 and lacked any empirical basis for identifying Rajasthan domicile students as a disadvantaged class under Article 15.
The petitioner referred to the report of the Committee chaired by Justice (Retd.) Manju Goel which concluded that students domiciled in Rajasthan are already adequately represented and that “reserving seats in NLUJ for RSDS is against the very concept of affirmative action.” It was contended that the Executive Council’s decision to implement the reservation was taken without proper consultation with the Academic Council, violating Section 17 and Statute 15 of the NLU Jodhpur Act.
However, the respondents argued that the impugned reservation policy is a matter of “state policy,” and many NLUs across the country have similar domicile-based reservations. The respondents cited Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, in support of the principle that “institutional preference” and “reasonable domicile-based reservation” are permissible. It was further contended that the State of Rajasthan, being the establishing and funding authority of NLU Jodhpur, has legitimate prerogative to promote access to higher education for its residents.
Court’s Observation
-
Legality of Domicile-Based Reservation
The Court held that the State domicile reservation is a policy matter, falling squarely within the domain of the State Government. The Court noted that “the domicile reservation in question is in accordance with law”. The Court emphasised that “the process for reservation was going on since 2018” and was duly deliberated, including the constitution of a committee and assessment of infrastructural feasibility. The Court held that the impugned policy did not transgress any constitutional provision or statutory limit, as the State of Rajasthan was both the establishing and funding authority of NLU Jodhpur.
-
Validity under the NLU Jodhpur Act, 1999
The Court scrutinized the statutory framework under Section 15 and Statute 12 of the NLU Jodhpur Act and noted that the amendment to Statute 12, which now permitted reservation for Rajasthan domiciles, was made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 of the NLU Jodhpur Act.
The Court emphasised that the Executive Council, being the designated administrative and academic authority under the NLU Jodhpur Act, has rightly passed the resolution. Furthermore, the amendment had received assent from the Chancellor, as required under Section 15(4), thus following due process of law.
-
Consistency with National Practice
The Court took judicial notice of the fact that most NLUs across India have domicile-based reservations and presented a comparative chart showing the extent of such reservations at various NLUs. The Court held that NLU Jodhpur’s decision merely aligned with this normative national framework, and hence, could not be treated as arbitrary or unlawful.
“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.”
-
Compliance with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution
Applying the two-fold test of reasonable classification laid down in State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the Court held that —
- The classification between Rajasthan domiciles and others was based on a clear intelligible differentia, namely, permanent residence and socio-educational affiliation with the State.
-
The object of the policy, promoting access to quality legal education for State residents, bore a rational nexus to classification.
Accordingly, the Court held that the reservation policy satisfied constitutional mandates of the twin test of “intelligible differentia” and “rational nexus” and did not offend the equality clause under Article 14.
The Court further held that the classification was intended to promote access to legal education for a regionally disadvantaged group and that “such classification is rooted in geographical or socio-educational considerations.”
The Court referred to Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, and noted that domicile-based preferences can “play a significant role in reducing uneven levels of development.”
-
Petitioner’s Standing and alleged violation of Rights
The Court observed that the petitioner, being merely an aspirant to CLAT 2024, had not demonstrated any vested right or legitimate expectation that had been adversely affected by the reservation policy. The Court categorically held 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.”
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of the domicile-based reservation policy as “the classification is reasonable, non-arbitrary, and maintains a rational nexus with the object of advancing regional educational development.”
[Anindita Biswas v. National Law University, Jodhpur, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11442/2023, Decided on 10-05-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh and Mr. Vinay Kothari, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate & Advocate General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
