Karnataka High Court: PIL challenges CLAT-PG mandate for Indian Army's JAG

1 min readComment
Pallavi Pathak
Assistant Manager Content
Updated on Sep 23, 2022 12:49 IST

A PIL is filed in the Karnataka High Court against the CLAT-PG mandate for the Indian Army's JAG, read here to know more.

Karnataka High Court: PIL challenges CLAT-PG mandate for Indian Army's JAG

A final year law student has filed a PIL in the Karnataka High Court that challenges the imposing of a precondition that the candidates should have appeared for CLAT-PG entrance to apply for selection as officer in the Indian Army's Judge Advocate General (JAG) Branch. The PIL stated that this condition violates the fundamental right to equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

“The fee for participation in the entrance exam for CLAT is INR 4,000. A law student has approximately 8 chances to appear for JAG entry. Now when the Clause adding preconditions that a person should have given the CLAT preceding year means if a person does not clear JAG in his first attempt then again he’ll have to apply for CLAT which means he’ll have to pay again and again INR 4000,” the PIL said, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The plea stated that due to entrance exam fees for National Law Universities (NLUs) being higher than entrance exams for other law colleges, the notification discriminates between those having the financial capacity for pursuing their higher studies in National Law Universities and others, who opt to join law colleges with lesser fees.

“Capable candidates can come from any institution and due to the above clause, several students belonging to the economically weaker sections are put to prejudice. This even leads to indirect discrimination. Therefore, the clause is liable to be set aside,” added the plea.

CLAT PG entrance examination is designed to test the academic knowledge of a candidate wishing to join the Masters's program in NLUs, the plea claimed that adopting it as an eligibility requirement is unreasonable and arbitrary. The state cannot discriminate between NLUs and non-NLUs as long as the institutions are approved by the government, added the petition.

Read more:

About the Author
Pallavi Pathak
Assistant Manager Content

Pallavi is a versatile writer with around eight years of experience in digital content. She has written content for both Indian and International publications and has a solid background in journalism and communicati... Read Full Bio


We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse the site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.