We use cookies and similar technologies that are necessary to operate the website. Additional cookies are used to perform analysis of website usage. By continuing to use our website, you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please read our Cookies Policy.

Closing this modal default settings will be saved.

Kerala State High Court Intervenes in Exorbitant Counselling Fee for CLAT

Owner's Profile

Staff Writer, TLR

Published on July 14, 2023, 17:41:00

120

India, high  court, conselling

Common-Law Admission Test, or CLAT, turns out to be the most sought-after Law University entrance examination in India, with qualifications enabling candidates to attend their Bachelor and Master Degrees across Indian National Law Universities. However, CLAT has come under criticism for errors in examination in the past years, the exorbitant application fee of 4000 Rupees, and for seeking 1000 Rupees per objection against answers given on the official answer key. The Universities themselves have earned enough notoriety for exorbitant fee structures, with quite a few writ petitions being filed against them in various Indian High Courts against the charging of full fees, including facilities that were not availed by students, during the pandemic. Now, the Consortium demands of a whopping 50000 rupees merely to qualify for counseling, where candidates would get to know if they are eligible to study at any of the NLUs, have raised many eyebrows. The sum had to be deposited by students within a day and a half or pushed out of the selection process. For perspective, India's average per capita income per month is around 10,580 Rupees (Annually ₹1,26,968). Against this backdrop, a petition filed by a few post-graduation candidates at the Kerala High Court, challenging the Consortium condition requiring ₹ 50,000 for participation in the allotment process, was heard before the bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman. The petition highlighted how unfair the admission process is and how it renders it virtually impossible for candidates of different financial capabilities to participate in the allotment process. Since the admission process has not concluded, procuring loans too is impossible as well. The Consortium had agreed to take up the grievance before its Grievance Redressal Committee and consider applications for counseling without the payment of the said Counselling fee.

Cause Title: Sivapriya Ajith & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.

Comments