Supreme Court Upholds 25% Domicile Reservation at NLU Jodhpur: Balancing Equity and Institutional Autonomy

The Supreme Court of India has recently upheld the constitutional validity of the 25% domicile reservation introduced by the National Law University, Jodhpur (NLUJ) for students from Rajasthan. The verdict came in the case Anindita Biswas v. National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors., where a 19-year-old law aspirant from West Bengal challenged the policy, arguing that it violated the equality mandate under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Delivering its order, a Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), refusing to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier judgment that upheld the policy. The Court emphasized that matters relating to domicile-based reservations fall within the policy domain of the State and do not warrant judicial intervention unless they are patently arbitrary or unconstitutional.

This ruling has reignited debates around domicile quotas in National Law Universities (NLUs), which were initially envisaged as institutions of national character, accessible to meritorious students across the country through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).

Background of the Case

In 2022, NLU Jodhpur passed a resolution introducing a 25% domicile quota for candidates from Rajasthan. The policy aimed to provide greater access to local students, aligning with the broader trend of domicile reservations adopted by several NLUs across India.

However, the decision was contested by Anindita Biswas, an aspiring law student from West Bengal. She argued that:

• The NLU Jodhpur Act of 1999 only permitted reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), and not for domicile-based categories.
• The introduction of a domicile quota was ultra vires the statute.
• The policy created an unreasonable classification without empirical evidence, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
• Students from Rajasthan were already well-represented in NLUs across India, undermining the rationale of backwardness or lack of representation.
• The move diluted the national character of CLAT, which was designed to provide equal opportunity to students nationwide.
• The State’s intervention in admission policies infringed upon the institutional autonomy of NLU Jodhpur, since its Academic Council had not formally approved the resolution.

A committee report cited by the petitioner also recommended setting up more law universities in Rajasthan rather than altering NLU Jodhpur’s admission framework.

Rajasthan High Court’s Decision

Earlier, the Rajasthan High Court had dismissed the petitioner’s challenge, holding that domicile reservation did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The Court reasoned that:

• Reservation based on domicile could not be considered inherently violative of Article 14, since classification on the basis of residence had been upheld in earlier precedents.
• The State government was within its rights to formulate education policy decisions to promote regional representation.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere, observed:

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

This brief but significant order effectively affirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s reasoning and recognized that domicile reservations fall within the ambit of State policy, which courts must respect unless it demonstrably violates constitutional safeguards.

Constitutional Arguments Raised

The case revolved around two central constitutional provisions:

1. Article 14 (Right to Equality): The petitioner argued that domicile reservation created an unreasonable classification by favoring Rajasthan students without a rational nexus to the objective of promoting equity.
2. Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): It was contended that the policy indirectly discriminated against candidates from other States who compete in CLAT with the expectation of equal opportunity.

The petitioner also relied on the principle of institutional autonomy, contending that the Academic Council, not the State government, had the final say in framing admission policies under the NLU Jodhpur Act.

However, the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to overturn the High Court’s decision, thereby indirectly upholding the constitutionality of domicile-based reservations in higher education institutions.

Domicile Reservations in NLUs: A Growing Trend

The issue of domicile quotas in NLUs has been a subject of legal and academic debate for several years. Out of the 24 NLUs in India, many have introduced domicile reservations ranging from 25% to 50% for students belonging to their respective States.

Supporters argue that:

• Such quotas enhance regional representation and make premier legal education accessible to local students who might otherwise face stiff national-level competition.
• They address geographical disparities in access to quality legal education.
• States investing resources in establishing and funding NLUs have a legitimate interest in ensuring benefits for their residents.

Critics, however, contend that:

• Domicile quotas undermine the national character of CLAT.
• They may compromise the merit-based admissions framework, affecting academic excellence.
• The policy often lacks empirical justification, as many States already have adequate representation in NLUs.

Key Precedents on Domicile Reservation

The Supreme Court and High Courts have previously examined domicile-based reservations in education:

• Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984): The Court recognized the validity of limited domicile reservations in professional courses but cautioned against excessive reliance on residence-based quotas.
• Saurabh Chaudhri v. Union of India (2003): The Court upheld domicile-based reservations in medical education, observing that States have the authority to prioritize local students in certain circumstances.

The present ruling in Anindita Biswas builds upon these precedents, reaffirming the principle that domicile reservations, if reasonable, are constitutionally permissible.

Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications:

1. For Law Aspirants: Candidates from outside Rajasthan may face reduced seats at NLU Jodhpur due to the domicile quota, intensifying competition for the remaining general category seats.
2. For NLUs: The ruling may encourage more NLUs to adopt or expand domicile-based quotas, further fragmenting the national character of CLAT.
3. For State Governments: The decision reinforces the States’ policy discretion in shaping higher education frameworks, provided they remain within constitutional limits.
4. For Institutional Autonomy: While the petitioner raised concerns about NLU Jodhpur’s autonomy, the Court’s silence on this point leaves ambiguity regarding the balance between State intervention and university independence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Anindita Biswas v. National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors. marks a crucial moment in the ongoing discourse on domicile reservations in higher education. By upholding the 25% quota for Rajasthan students at NLU Jodhpur, the Court has recognized the State’s role in promoting regional representation while maintaining that such policies do not inherently violate equality principles.

However, the decision also raises critical questions: Does domicile reservation dilute the national identity of NLUs? Should States focus on expanding higher education infrastructure instead of altering existing admission frameworks? And most importantly, how should India balance meritocracy with regional equity in elite institutions?

As NLUs continue to evolve as premier centers of legal education, the debate over domicile quotas will likely persist, demanding a careful balance between constitutional values, institutional autonomy, and social equity.

Also Read