Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against ‘Excessive’ Counselling Fee For CLAT-PG, No Interim Relief
The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea challenging the “excessive” counselling fee to be paid by candidates for admissions to Common Law Admission Test Post-Graduate (CLAT-PG) courses.
Vacation judge Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta sought response of the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs), Bar Council of India (BCI) and University Grants Commission (UGC).
The plea has been filed by candidate Jatin Shrivastava, arguing that he was unable to participate in the counselling process due to non payment of the excessive and exorbitant fee.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner candidate submitted that only those candidates who are able to pay the fee are allowed to participate in the second round of counselling. He thus requested that the requirement be stayed in the interim.
“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,” he said.
On court’s query, the counsel informed that the date for second counselling is today whereas the third round is on July 04. He said that the choice filling happened on Friday last week but the petitioner could not participate as he had to pay additional Rs. 20,000 for upgradation in the second round.
“This is the only examination in the country where such large amount of fees is charged,” the counsel said.
While the Court issued notice on the plea and posted the matter on July 02, two days before commencement of third round of counselling, Justice Gupta refused to pass any interim order in the matter.
“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?…,” the Court remarked.
The Court further refused to pass any order on the request of the counsel that the petitioner be allowed to participate in the counselling process without payment of fees.
The plea challenges Clause 1.5.1 of the counselling notification which places a minimum requirement of opting for minimum of 15 NLUs as options at the time of commencement of the counselling.
It further challenges the levy of ‘Non- Refundable Confirmation Fees’ as excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary and resultantly violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also to restrain the CLAT Consortium from realising the same from any same candidate in the ‘ongoing counselling process’ for admissions to CLAT PG Courses.
It further seeks a direction on CLAT Consortium for refunding the amount of non- confirmation fees till the final outcome of the petition, as also to stay the counselling process for admissions to CLAT PG courses.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth R.Gupta, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, Mr. Aman Agarwal and Mr. Uddaish P., Advocates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sulabh Rewari and Mr. Shubhansh Thakur, Advocates for R- 1; Mr. Manoj Ranjan Singh and Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocates for R-5
Title: JATIN SHRIVASTAVA v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES AND ORS
