State Domicile Reservation in National Law Universities: How justified is this Policy?

Profile of the Author: Sakshi Srivastav is a law student pursuing B.A.LL.B (Hons) from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.

Introduction

Recently, the Karnataka State Legislature enacted the controversial National Law School of India (Amendment) Act, 2020, which aims at providing 25 per cent horizontal state domicile reservation to the residents of Karnataka. [1] I use the word "controversial" because the law aspirants and legal professionals all over the nation have been raising a hue and cry against the said Amendment Act since the day it was proposed in the State Legislature.

It is not the first time that a National Law University (hereinafter referred to as NLU) has been subjected to the policy of State Domicile Reservation by its State Legislature. To the contrary, almost all the NLUs provide Domicile reservation. Given the fact that the topmost NLU has succumbed to this policy, the debate around this policy has rekindled with more ferocity than ever before.

Understanding the Structure

There are 23 National Law Universities in India, of which 22 have formed a consortium to organize national level common entrance test known as CLAT for their Under-Graduate and Post-graduate programmes. [2] Of thousands of law aspirants who sit for this exam, only 2538 candidates [3] qualify. Further, out of these 2538 seats, 1433 are available to the general category candidates [4] while over 750 seats are reserved for the domiciles of the states where these NLUs are located [5], respectively. To top it all, the afore-mentioned state domicile quota is not inclusive of “Horizontal Reservation” [6] and enumerates only Vertical Reservation.

The Delhi State Legislature has made the National Law University of Delhi, which schedules its Entrance exam separately, subject to 50% of State Domicile reservation (the matter is, however, sub-judice in Delhi High Court). [7]

Constitutionality of State Domicile reservation in NLUs

The Supreme Court of India, by way of several judgements, has established that the policy of Domicile Reservation by State governments in State universities doesn’t violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution [8] as it falls well within the category of reasonable classification, a concept introduced in the landmark case of R.K Garg v UOI. [9]

In the case of  Dr Pradeep Jain v. Union of India [10], the SC held that Domicile reservation can be provided by the State Governments in their State universities giving two reasonings-

1. The State government provides financial aid to the universities from the tax it collects from the residents of the state. Further, stating the doctrine of sons of the soil, it was maintained that residents studying in their state will most likely settle there and provide their service to it.
2. The backwardness of a region.

Domicile reservation was also given sanctity in the cases of D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat [11] and N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore. [12]

National Law Universities, unlike what their names suggest, are not central universities. NLUs conduct a common all-India entrance exam, but these are set up and funded by State governments. They are therefore considered to be State Universities by University Grants Commission (UGC). [13] State legislatures have made their respective NLUs subject to Domicile reservation on account of the aforesaid.

Is the policy just?

It must be kept in mind that NLUs may be set up and funded by States but they are not state-centric universities. [14] They were never meant to cater to the needs of a state and its residents. NLSIU, which has served as the model for setting-up of other NLUs, started out as the Bar Council of India’s initiative. [15] The objective of The Advocates Act, 1961 [16] was to deviate from the British Era approach of rendering legal eduction through legal departments existing within larger universities and to establish law universities of national importance that would improve the quality of legal education in India. [17] For this purpose, the BCI was given the administrative function in this arena and using the same, it helped establish NLSIU with statutory enablement from the Karnataka State Legislature. [18] The NLSIU Act enacted for the said purpose also doesn’t make any mention of it being a state-centric entity. [19]

Secondly, to cater to the needs of a state and its residents, every state has a faculty of law in its multi-course offering State universities. In the presence of such universities, where the needs of the state residents are already been met by the legal departments of State Universities, the policy of Domicile reservation in NLUs, which conduct national common entrance exams for admission and were conceived to be national institutions, is not only unjust but also needless.

Thirdly, the adverse impact of this policy cannot be ignored. Students from the diverse socio-cultural background, by writing CLAT, secure seats in NLUs and make up for a diverse environment conducive for their growth. This policy of domicile reservation would thus whittle down the experience students gain owing to diversity. Further, this policy is vehemently against the interest of law aspirants who look forward to studying at these dignified institutions but fail to do so for not being residents of the state where a particular law school is situated.

Moreover, the reasoning provided in Pradeep Jain doesn’t seem to fit here. One of the reasons stated is that such a policy will provide students living in regional backward areas with an opportunity to receive a quality education. What this reasoning doesn’t take into consideration is the fact that this quota mostly helps the already privileged students living in developed parts of a state instead of those living in backward areas not to mention how this reasoning per se is detrimental to the students living in backward areas of the nation. Furthermore, in so far as the doctrine of son of soils is concerned, this principle doesn’t stand true, at least in the legal profession.

Conclusion

The founder-director of NLSIU, Prof NR Madhava Menon, who is also regarded as the founder of modern legal education in India, had once stated that he didn’t consider State domicile reservation to be right as NLSIU had been conceived as a national institution. [20]

Owing to the facts that other NLUs are modelled after NLSIU and the very purpose behind their creation as mentioned in the Advocates Act, every NLU is said to have been conceived as a National Institution. Thus, the current situation where almost all of them have been subjected to State domicile reservation seems vehemently unjust.

I strongly believe that the status of NLUs, of being State Universities, must be done away with and they should be “nationalised”.This step among other benefits would help in creating national institutes in the field of law, much like the IITs and AIIMS that exist in the field of engineering and medicine, respectively. As domicile reservation can only be provided by state governments in State universities, the step of nationalisation will also lead to the removal of this policy from NLUs. However, much to many people’s disappointment, so far the attempts to bring forth parliamentary legislation declaring NLUs as National Institutes have met with failure.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

FAQs

Q. Discuss instances of legal education in the historical context.

Ans. Legal education in India traces its origin to the Ancient period when the kings and princes were given teachings about Dharma and Nyaya. Then in the Mughal Period, the concept of legal representatives of people or vakils came into existence. In the colonial era, the right to act as counsel was granted only to the British or the Irish. In the post – Independence era legal education has been traditionally offered as a three years graduate degree.

References

[1] Devansh Kaushik & Saumya Singh, The State Domicile in the ‘National’ Law School, BAR AND BENCH (May 10th, 2020), https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/the-state-domicile-in-the-national-law-school.

[2] CLAT 2020, CONSORTIUM OF NLUs (Aug. 14, 2020), https://consortiumofnlus.ac.in/clat-2020/.

[3] Shubham Bhakuni, CLAT Seats 2020: 22 NLSUs Seat Matrix, CAREERS 360 (Dec. 26th, 2019), https://law.careers360.com/articles/clat-seats.

[4] Ibid.

[5] CLAT 2020-Seat Matrix, CONSORTIUM OF NLUs (Aug. 14, 2020), https://consortiumofnlus.ac.in/clat-2020/.

[6] Shashwat Nigam, Horizontal Reservation-Vertical Reservation-Inter-Locking-Reservation, LINKEDIN (Dec. 21st 2015), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/horizontal-reservation-vertical-reservation-shashwat-nigam/.

[7] Karan Tripathi, Delhi HC Stays NLU-Delhi's 50% Horizontal Reservation For Students Who Passed Qualifying Exams From Institutes In NCT [Read Order], LIVE LAW (June 28th, 2020), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-delhi-hc-stays-nlu-delhis-50-domicile-reservation-for-local-residents-159062.

[8] INDIA CONST. art. 14.

[9] R.K Garg v Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138.

[10] Dr Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 S.C.C. 654.

[11] D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 1215.

[12] N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore, (1971) 2 S.C.C. 22.

[13] Prabudh Singh, The Plight of National Law Universities in India, LIVE WIRE (Oct. 2, 2019), https://livewire.thewire.in/campus/the-plight-of-national-law-universities-in-india/.

[14] Devansh Kaushik & Saumya Singh, The State Domicile in the ‘National’ Law School, BAR AND BENCH (May 10th, 2020), https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/the-state-domicile-in-the-national-law-school.

[15] Ibid.

[16] The Advocates Act, 1961, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).

[17] Aayush Akar & Vivek Raj, National Law Universities (NLU): need for nationalisation, IPLEADERS ( Jan. 19th, 2020), https://blog.ipleaders.in/national-law-universities-need-for-nationalization/.

[18] Mustafa Plumber, Bar Council Of India Moves Karnataka HC Challenging 25% Domicile Reservation In NLSIU [Read Petition], LIVE LAW (Aug. 12th, 2020), https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bar-council-of-india-moves-karnataka-hc-challenging-25-domicile-reservation-in-nlsiu-161320?infinitescroll=1.

[19] Devansh Kaushik & Saumya Singh, The State Domicile in the ‘National’ Law School, BAR AND BENCH (May 10th, 2020), https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/the-state-domicile-in-the-national-law-school.

[20] Ibid.