Rajasthan High Court Upholds 25% Domicile Reservation In National Law University Jodhpur
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of 25% domicile-based reservation at National Law University, Jodhpur (“NLUJ”), ruling that such reservation did not violate Article 14 since the classification was reasonable, non-arbitrary and maintained a rational nexus with the object of advancing regional educational development.The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra...
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of 25% domicile-based reservation at National Law University, Jodhpur (“NLUJ”), ruling that such reservation did not violate Article 14 since the classification was reasonable, non-arbitrary and maintained a rational nexus with the object of advancing regional educational development.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali took note of many other NLUs that have introduced domicile-based reservation based on their respective states, and opined that the state had merely aligned NLUJ with the normative structure followed by its sister NLUs.
“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 Court was hearing a petition filed against the notification and NLUJ's Executive Council's Resolution, passed in 2022, introducing the domicile-based reservation for students from Rajasthan, arguing it to be violative of Articles 14 and 15, and lacking any statutory basis for the same.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that no provision in the National Law University, Jodhpur Act, 1999 (“the Act”) reflected the purpose or objective to provide such kind of reservation. Furthermore, reference was made to findings of a committee constituted under a retired Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manju Goel, to analyse this reservation.
The Committee report recommended that there was no need for a domicile-based reservation by NLUJ since students of Rajasthan were already sufficiently represented in the NLUs and Rajasthan was not a backward state in respect of education. Hence, there was no reasonable nexus of the reservation with the object sought to be achieved by it.
On the contrary, counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that reservation was a policy matter, and thus was within the domain of the State government. It was further submitted that almost all NLUs had provided reservation of seats basis the domicile of the State, except for NLUJ due to which students of Rajasthan were suffering.
The counsel also argued that the State domicile reservation had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri v Union of India.
After hearing the contentions and examining different provisions of the Act as well as precedents, the Court held that the action of the State was neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.
The Court further took into account that almost all NLUs had introduced domicile based reservation, and opined that NLUJ was aligning its normative structure with its sister NLUs.
It was further observed that the policy fulfilled the twin objective required for reasonable classification under Article 14.
The classification between the candidates based in Rajasthan and those from other States was based on clear and intelligible differentia. And the objective of promoting access to quality legal education to students belonging to the State that was sought to be achieved was not only legitimate but also bear rational nexus with the reservation policy.
Reference was also made to the Supreme Court case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court recognized the permissibility of domicile-based preferences in admissions to higher educational institutions particularly when the institutions were established and maintained by a State.
In the background of this analysis, it was held 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.”
The Court further highlighted that the Executive Council had passed the resolution in accordance with the powers conferred upon it under the Act, and hence the policy fell within the permissible limits of institutional autonomy, without violating constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Title: Anindita Biswas v National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
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