~ This post has been authored by Khushi Mishra.

The issue of the NRI quota in National Law Universities has been an issue for long. At its core, it raises an important question of whether the NRI quota, which propounds to reserve seats for students based more on the financial strength of students and less on their merit, is unconstitutional and inequitable. This article examines the issue with the following: Whether the NRI quota mars the principle of meritocracy? Does it conform to the constitutional provisions of equality? In what way does it affect the commercialization of education and the admission of deprived students in top-tier law schools? To answer this question, we will analyze legal decisions, statistics, and general consequences of NRI quota on NLUs.

One of the most significant criticisms of the NRI quota is a violation of meritocracy. The admission process to National Law Universities (NLUs) through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) is largely falling short of expectations, an NRI quota simply enabled students to avoid CLAT and enter by means of payment of a higher fee alone, thus raising questions of fairness. Meritorious candidates who have sweated it out to earn their respective places through a tough exam may be turned down in preference for those who can shell out more, irrespective of their academic credentials. In Ishika Patnaik vs. National Law University of Odisha and others,[1] the Orissa High Court candidly described the NRI quota as an elitist reservation. It effectively dilutes the principle of equal opportunity in education by holding a separate category for the students according to financial means. For its quota this has been viewed as a reservation for a rich, which, on the face of it, goes against the principle of spreading merit-based admissions to premier institutions like NLUs.

The constitutional validity of the NRI quota appears to be quite dubious, especially when viewed through the prism of Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which provides equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.[2] Article 14 prohibits the arbitrary classification that do not bear reasonable or in scientific nexus with any form of objective. In this regard, the NRI quota has also been declared as unconstitutional because it is arbitrary and unregulated. The eligibility criteria for such quotas are usually so vague that it creates an opportunity for “locals” or “native residents.” those who have spent their whole lives in India but still claim NRI status by citing “intelligible differentia,” which is the most important legal test that applies to all forms of reservation under Article 14. Also, the quota fails the “rational nexus” test, which mandates that any form of reservation must be based on a distinction of intelligible nature and must serve a legitimate purpose. In the NRI quota case, there is no reasonable nexus between the purpose for which affirmative action has been undertaken and the economically privileged class that benefits from Nri seats. Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution gives it the authority to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. But this NRI quota would seem to misread the principles of Article 15(4).[3]

Where Article 15(4) plans to assist the disadvantaged sections of society, the NRI quota works to the advantage of a class which is financially better off. NRIs, by definition, are not members of the socially or educationally backward classes which Article 15(4) plans to assist. Such a quota, therefore, again nullifies the aim of affirmative action. In AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS,[4] the Supreme Court of the country decided that those persons who are financially well-off cannot be considered as “educationally handicapped.” The NRI quota does not pay heed to such precedent; instead, it has given preference to having money more than actual need for education. Such a form of reservation is precisely antithetical to the mandate given by the constitutional principles in uplifting the socially deprived sections of society. The NRI quota has added fuel to fire in the escalating commercialization of education in India. NLUs, the places where, theoretically, education was to take the form of a thought process, gradually used their reliance on the higher fees paid by NRI students to condemn this institution into becoming a commodity. For the seats are sold to the highest bidder. In reality, while institutions claim that the higher fees are necessary for greater financial sustainability and educational enhancement, it is only a minority share of the revenue generated from NRI students that goes towards subsidizing education for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

For instance, among the 16 National Law Universities (NLUs) that have reservations for NRIs, only five offer genuine and substantial fee concessions for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Furthermore, the total amount spent on these concessions accounts for just 5% of the additional revenue generated. This highlights the limited financial support available to disadvantaged students despite the reservations. Commercialization is undermining the educational mission of NLUs while also betraying their greater obligation to distribute opportunity fairly. The ineffective reinvestment of the funds into programs for disadvantaged students further reveals the unjust nature of the NRI quota. An impact on students from marginalized communities who deserve reservations is also directly entailed in the NRI quota: many NLUs set aside a major chunk of their seats in favor of NRI admissions, hence reducing general as well as seats under categories reserved for marginalized social groups. A good example of this is found in the institution of NUJS Kolkata, whereby a substantial number of seats that otherwise would be utilized for meritorious or reserved category students are commandeered by way of NRI admissions.[5] In effect, this has resulted in a “double displacement” whereby not only high-achieving students who rightly deserve to be admitted but also students belonging to weaker sections, who would stand to benefit through affirmative reservations, get left out. It strikes at the very heart of India’s reservation system that is aimed at redressing social inequities.

 The NRI quota in NLUs has doubtful constitutional and even moral grounds. It defeats the principle of meritocracy, giving the seat to less meritorious candidates for only the reason of financial capacity. Quota also violates the principle of equality as outlined in Articles 14 and 15(4) of the Indian Constitution which is actually for uplifting the marginalized classes and not the privileged ones. The quota has further led to the commercialization of education, and gaining admission into elite institutions has become a subject of wealth rather than one’s academic performance. Those factors go a long way to prove that the NRI quota should be rescinded and not allowed to survive. NLUs must aim at ensuring transparency, equality, and merit in their admissions and seek to educate more deserving candidates, especially those from the underserved sectors. India’s legal education system will suffer irreparable loss if institutions do not uphold the values of equality and social justice under the Indian Constitution.

[1] P.A. Inamdar v State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537.

[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 14.

[3]Constitution of India 1950, art 15(4).

[4] AIIMS Students’ Union v AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428.

[5] ‘Admission Notice for J&K Residents, NRI, NRI Sponsored Category 2024’ (NUJS, December 2023) https://www.nujs.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Admission-Notice-For-J-K-Residents-NRI-NRISponsored-Category-2024.pdf accessed 27 September 2024.