{"id":351208,"date":"2025-06-21T16:00:34","date_gmt":"2025-06-21T10:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=351208"},"modified":"2025-06-26T17:09:29","modified_gmt":"2025-06-26T11:39:29","slug":"rajasthan-high-court-upholds-constitutional-validity-of-nlu-jodhpurs-domicile-based-reservation-nlu-jodhpur-scc-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-upholds-constitutional-validity-of-nlu-jodhpurs-domicile-based-reservation-nlu-jodhpur-scc-times\/","title":{"rendered":"CLAT | Rajasthan High Court upholds constitutional validity of Domicile-Based Reservation at NLU Jodhpur"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> 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*<\/span> and Chandra Prakash Shrimali, JJ., upheld the validity of the impugned notification and resolution introducing domicile-based reservation.<\/p>\n

Issue in hand<\/h3>\n

The main issues in the instant matter are\u2014<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Whether the State of Rajasthan and NLU Jodhpur have the legislative and administrative authority to introduce domicile-based reservation?<\/li>\n
  2. Whether such reservation violates Articles 14<\/a> and 15<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>?<\/li>\n
  3. \n

    Is the impugned policy contrary to the objects and statutory scheme of the National Law University, Jodhpur Act, 1999 (NLU Jodhpur Act)?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Parties\u2019 Contentions<\/h3>\n

    The petitioner contended that the impugned notification and resolution was \u201cultra vires the Constitution<\/a>\u201d<\/span> and \u201ccontrary to the intent of establishing a national-level legal education institution,\u201d<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

    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 \u201creserving seats in NLUJ for RSDS is against the very concept of affirmative action.\u201d<\/span> It was contended that the Executive Council\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

    However, the respondents argued that the impugned reservation policy is a matter of \u201cstate policy,\u201d and many NLUs across the country have similar domicile-based reservations. The respondents cited Saurabh Chaudri<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2003) 11 SCC 146<\/a>, in support of the principle that \u201cinstitutional preference\u201d and \u201creasonable domicile-based reservation\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

    Court\u2019s Observation<\/h3>\n