The Delhi High Court has taken cognizance of a public interest petition challenging the hefty counselling fee structure set by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) for the Common Law Admission Test – Postgraduate (CLAT-PG) admissions.
The plea was filed by Jatin Shrivastava, a candidate who was unable to participate in the second round of counselling due to the imposition of an additional ₹20,000 fee for upgradation—on top of the ₹30,000 initially required.
“This is the only examination in the country where such a large amount of fees is charged,” the counsel representing the petitioner stated before the court.
Read Also:- Rejection Based on Birthmark is Arbitrary: J&K High Court Quashes CAPF Constable Aspirant’s Disqualification
Vacation Judge Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta issued a notice to the Consortium of NLUs, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the University Grants Commission (UGC), seeking their response. The matter has been scheduled for hearing on July 2, 2025—two days prior to the third round of counselling.
Despite hearing the concerns, the court refused to grant interim relief to the petitioner, stating:
“The process is going on. Second counselling is going on. The third counselling is coming…. How can I disturb the whole system for one candidate?”
Read Also:- PIL filed in Supreme Court Seeking Grounding of Air India's Boeing Fleet After Ahmedabad Plane Crash
The counsel urged the court to allow the petitioner’s participation without fee payment, arguing that the current fee model directly violates UGC regulations and established Supreme Court judgments.
“Rs. 30,000 they are taking the amount for participation in the counselling. It is ex facie in the teeth of UGC regulations, in the teeth of Supreme Court judgments,” submitted the counsel.
The petition primarily challenges Clause 1.5.1 of the counselling guidelines, which mandates candidates to select a minimum of 15 National Law Universities (NLUs) during the counselling process. It also contests Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the June 11, 2025 notification, which impose non-refundable confirmation fees.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Son and Daughter-in-Law Cannot Claim Residence in Parents' Home Without Legal Right
These clauses, the petitioner argues, are “excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary and resultantly violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The plea further seeks:
- A declaration that Clause 1.5.1 is unconstitutional.
- A direction to strike down the non-refundable fee clauses.
- A refund of the non-confirmation fees to the petitioner and other similarly affected candidates.
- A stay on the current counselling process pending the outcome of the petition.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Stays Arrest of Wajahat Khan in Multiple FIRs Against Him over Alleged Hate Speech
Quote from the order:
"Let fresh notice be issued to remaining Respondents through all permissible modes… List on 02nd July, 2025 before Roster Bench in Supplementary List."
The petition was filed through advocates Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, Mr. Aman Agarwal, and Mr. Uddaish P., while counsels Mr. Sulabh Rewari and Mr. Shubhansh Thakur appeared for Respondent No. 1, and Mr. Manoj Ranjan Singh and Mr. Vishal Aggarwal represented Respondent No. 5.
The court has not yet issued a stay or passed any order regarding fee payment, but the petition is now officially under judicial consideration.
Title: JATIN SHRIVASTAVA v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ORS
