JODHPUR, June 19 -- The Rajasthan high court has upheld the validity of 25% domicile-based reservation introduced by National Law University (NLU), Jodhpur for undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes. Dismissing the writ petition filed by a CLAT 2024 aspirant from West Bengal, the division bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali on Tuesday ruled that the reservation policy is a constitutionally valid exercise of the state's policy discretion. The petitioner had challenged the University's Executive Council Resolution dated January 22, 2022, and the notification issued by the state government on December 26, 2022, calling the move "ultra vires the Constitution" and the NLU Jodhpur Act, 1999. It was argued that such domicile-based reservation alters the institution's national character and was passed without the concurrence of the Academic Council, as required under the law. However, the court rejected these arguments, holding that "the reservation in question is in accordance with law, and that the state domicile reservation is a policy matter which is in the domain of the state government." The judgment cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India and Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, which permits institutional and domicile-based preferences in admissions at state-run universities. Addressing concerns over violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, the bench observed: "The reservation policy is a constitutionally valid exercise of the state's discretion in educational matters and does not fall foul of Article 14. The classification created is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but rather furthers a legitimate public purpose within the framework of the Constitution. 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 action is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional per se," the court said....