CLAT-PG: Delhi HC to hear on July 17 plea challenging 'exorbitant' confirmation fee
A bench of Justice Vikash Mahajan posted the matter for further hearing on July 17, and in the meantime, asked the Consortium of National Law Universities and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to file their counter affidavits.
Last week, a vacation bench of Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta agreed to examine the plea challenging "the arbitrary level of exorbitant fees" in the name of non-refundable confirmation fee at every round of CLAT-PG counselling and issued notices to respondent authorities, including the Bar Council of India (BCI).
The plea filed by advocate Siddharth R. Gupta contended that this non-refundable confirmation fee was not only unreasonable, but also violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, and was being levied mechanically without even examining the suitability of a large number of candidates to bear the exorbitant expenditure of participating in the counselling and admission process.
It added that the "exorbitant" non-refundable confirmation fee was also violative of the directions issued by the UGC since all the NLUs are bound by such directions under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
The petitioner Jatin Shrivastava, a successful candidate of CLAT-PG examination, who has achieved 474 rank in the recently revised results, claimed that he is entirely dependent on education loan for pursuing his LLM degree, which would be sanctioned only after he gets admission in any NLU of his choice and even the loan installments will be transferable only to the NLU concerned and not to the CLAT Consortium.
As per the plea, despite financial distress in his family, the petitioner has deposited the requisite counselling fees of Rs 30,000, and he chose to espouse the cause on behalf of all such large number of candidates who may be facing financial adversities to pay the exorbitant fees of Rs 20,000-40,000 per round of counselling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
Justice Varma Cash Row: Govt Moves To Build Consensus On Removal Motion, Signature Drive Soon
A formal committee will be constituted once the requisite number of signatures from Members of Parliament is obtained to move the motion in either House. The government has begun reaching out to key political parties to build consensus on initiating a removal motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, sources told News18. The move comes in the wake of an in-house committee report that reportedly indicted the Delhi High Court judge over the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence following a fire incident on March 14. A formal process to collect signatures from MPs to move the motion in Parliament is likely to begin next week, senior officials said. While the term 'impeachment" is technically reserved for the removal of a President, the procedure for removing a High Court judge involves a similar process under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution. According to sources, the government will follow the established legal framework and initiate the next steps accordingly. A formal committee will be constituted once the requisite number of signatures from Members of Parliament is obtained to move the motion in either House. According to sources, VP Jagdeep Dhankhar, too, is likely to give a ruling in the case soon. Panel Report Calls for Resignation The in-house panel, comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court's Justice Anu Sivaraman, submitted its findings to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on May 4. The committee was formed on March 25, days after firefighters allegedly stumbled upon large sums of unaccounted cash while responding to a fire at Justice Varma's Delhi home. Sources cited in a Bar & Bench report said the findings of the committee were damning and recommended that Justice Varma be given the option to resign immediately. If he refuses, the report will be forwarded to the President of India, triggering the formal process for judicial removal. This development marks a rare and serious moment for the Indian judiciary, with the government now poised to initiate one of the most stringent constitutional processes available for judicial accountability. First Published: July 03, 2025, 12:14 IST
India Gazette
34 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Mentors appointed in 56 Delhi government schools, focus on improving performance
New Delhi [India], July 3 (ANI): The Directorate of Education, Delhi, has appointed senior officers as mentors in 56 government schools that recorded the lowest pass percentage (up to 45%) in classes 9 and 11 during the 2024-25 session. Each officer will guide one school until the 2025-26 session, conduct inspections every fortnight, and upload reports on the MIS portal, said a senior official in the Directorate of Education. This initiative is linked to the 'Mission Mathematics' and special enrichment classes campaign aimed at strengthening foundational understanding of mathematics for classes 6 to 10. The inspection reports will include assessments of subject-wise performance, student attendance, use of teaching-learning materials (TLM), and more. District and zonal officers will oversee the effective implementation of these programmes. The Delhi government is planning to introduce an ordinance to regulate private school fees. The ordinance may be introduced within a week. The Delhi government is preparing to bring this ordinance to curb arbitrary fee hikes by private schools. According to sources, the draft of the proposed ordinance, under the 'Delhi School Education Bill, 2025', has already been sent to the Law Department. The ordinance proposes a fine of up to Rs 50,000 for violations, and in cases of repeated violations, provision has been made for the confiscation of school property. Committees will be formed at the school, district, and review levels to determine fees. This bill was initially scheduled to be presented during the special session proposed on May 13-14, but the session could not be held. It will now be introduced as a bill in the upcoming Monsoon Session. On April 16, show-cause notices were served to 10 schools with regard to the arbitrary fee hike and those who didn't submit their audit reports. The present Delhi government has already collected audited reports from 600 schools. Previously, while speaking to ANI on the issue of fee hike by private schools, Delhi education minister Ashish Sood said, 'We will create a strong documentation system and tighten the noose around such schools. We will investigate how arbitrary fee hikes were approved in the past and whether any corrupt dealings took place with the previous government. We will not tolerate any such malpractice under any circumstances.' The matter of the arbitrary fee hike came to the fore when several students in DPS Dwarka were disenrolled when they failed to pay the hiked school fee, and the court intervened. The government also sent a committee that investigated the matter, following which show-cause notices were served to the schools. Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta has also announced previously many times that such fee hikes and harassment of parents and students won't be tolerated. Keeping this in mind, the government plans to introduce this ordinance to curb arbitrary fee hikes. The Rekha Gupta government aims to provide quality and modern education to every child in the state. The issue of arbitrary fee hikes by private schools in Delhi has been a longstanding concern, with the Delhi government taking various measures over the years to address it. (ANI)
India Gazette
34 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC Upholds CRPF's rejection of bid in Sniper Rifle tender
New Delhi [India], July 23 (ANI): In an order on defence procurement, the Delhi High Court has upheld the Central Reserve Police Force's (CRPF) decision to reject the bid of Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. for the supply of sniper rifles and ammunition. The Court dismissed the company's challenge, which alleged technical bias and unfair advantage to rival bidders. A Division Bench comprising Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ruled that the petitioner was given ample opportunity, including a second round of field trials. The Court found no merit in the argument that weather conditions or mirage effects caused the petitioner's failure. It emphasised that allowing a third trial would undermine the procurement process and set a problematic precedent. The Court accepted the CRPF's interpretation that 'matching ammunition' included Hollow Point Boat Tail (HPBT) rounds. It noted that all bidders had agreed to the trial methodology in advance, and the petitioner's objections surfaced only after failing the trial--making them appear as an afterthought. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the Tata Motors Ltd. case, the Bench reiterated that a disqualified bidder has no standing to challenge the selection of others. The petitioner had contested its disqualification via a March 27, 2025, letter, arguing that it used the specified Ball/Lock Base ammunition, while competitors used HPBT rounds--allegedly in violation of tender norms and international standards. It also cited favourable results from earlier Pune trials and requested a fresh trial, citing environmental interference during testing. However, the Union of India and CRPF countered that the tender's term 'matching ammunition' encompassed HPBT. They pointed out that no objections were raised during or immediately after the trials, and all bidders--including the petitioner--had signed fair trial certificates. They also argued that the ballistic difference between HPBT and Ball/Lock Base was negligible at the 400-meter range, and a third trial would compromise the integrity and timeliness of the procurement. Advocate Rohan Jaitley appeared as Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) for the Union of India, along with Advocates Varun Pratap Singh, Dev Pratap Shani, and Yogya Bhatia, who appeared on behalf of the CRPF. The case stems from a CRPF tender issued on September 24, 2024, for 200 sniper rifles chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Three firms--Stumpp Schuele Lewis, PLR Systems, and ICOMM Tele Ltd.--participated in the trials. The first round, held in January 2025 in Pune, saw none of the bidders meet all accuracy benchmarks. A second round in February at the CRPF Academy in Gurugram resulted in PLR Systems and ICOMM passing, while the petitioner failed to meet the 400-meter accuracy requirement. (ANI)
