CLAT PG candidates have approached the Kerala High Court against the counselling fee, saying it “fails to consider socio-economic disparities” and ends up excluding deserving students from poor backgrounds, violating the principle of equal opportunity.
A petition has been submitted to the Kerala High Court challenging the counselling fee structure for admission to postgraduate law programs in National Law Universities (NLUs) through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2025.
Justice DK Singh issued a notice on June 17 to the Central government, the Consortium of NLUs, the University Grants Commission (UGC), and the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding this petition, filed by three candidates currently involved in the CLAT PG 2025 counselling process.
The CLAT admission counselling process features a two-tier fee structure. Initially, a counselling registration fee of Rs.30,000 is charged to candidates from the general category, while candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Persons with Disability (PWD), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) must pay Rs.20,000.
Following the allotment of a seat in any counselling round, candidates who choose either the ‘freeze’ or ‘float’ options are required to pay a mandatory, non-refundable confirmation fee of Rs.20,000.
The petitioners argue that this fee structure creates an undue barrier for economically disadvantaged candidates, violating the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition says that the two-level fee system is unfair, unreasonable, and goes against Article 14 of the Constitution. It also says that the fee does not take into account the financial differences among applicants. Besides this, the petition adds that there was no mention of this fee either in the admission notice or in the prospectus.
As stated in the plea,
“While formally uniform, this fee fails to consider socio-economic disparities, resulting in a de facto exclusion of meritorious candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds. Such exclusion is antithetical to substantive equality and frustrates the constitutional vision of fair and merit-based access to professional education.”
The candidates contend that the fee structure is unreasonable and lacks transparency, imposing a disproportionate financial burden prior to admission, as these fees are not covered by scholarships or education loans. They further argue that the consortium of NLUs does not provide adequate services to justify such high fees.
Additionally, they claim that the non-refundable nature of the Rs.20,000 fee contradicts the UGC’s Fee Refund Policy for 2024-25.
The petitioners submitted,
“The Confirmation Fee is ostensibly collected to secure the seat for a candidate who has been provisionally allotted a seat. However, it operates as a punitive measure for withdrawal. The policy dictates that this fee is non-refundable, regardless of whether the seat is later reallocated to another deserving candidate,”
Consequently, they are seeking an order from the Court to cancel the counselling registration and confirmation fees, as well as a full refund of the amounts paid if they are not selected in the admission process.
The matter is scheduled for consideration on July 22.
The petitioners are represented by advocates Sarath KP, Risvi Muhammed, and Gokul Krishnan R., with support from the Legal Collective for Students’ Rights (LCSR), a student-led initiative advocating for students’ rights through strategic litigation, policy reform, and grassroots legal aid.
Case Title: Sandhra Eliza Suresh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.