Law Students Challenge ₹50,000 CLAT Counselling Fee: Delhi & Kerala HCs Step In

Introduction: The CLAT Counselling Fee Controversy

Every year, thousands of aspirants from across India prepare for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), the gateway to the prestigious National Law Universities (NLUs). But in 2024–25, a storm has erupted over the high cost of the counselling process—especially the ₹50,000 fee charged to secure admission after clearing CLAT. This steep fee, seen by many as unjust and exclusionary, has led to nationwide student protests, online petitions, and even court challenges.

Now, the Delhi High Court and Kerala High Court have stepped in, accepting petitions filed by CLAT 2025 aspirants challenging the legality and fairness of this fee structure. What started as a student-led movement has now grown into a national conversation about access to legal education, economic justice, and the constitutional right to equality.

What Is CLAT and Why the Fee Matters?

The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) is a centralized entrance test for admissions to undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) law programs in 22 National Law Universities (NLUs) across India.

Here’s how the fee structure works:

• Application Fee: ₹4,000 for general category candidates, ₹3,500 for SC/ST candidates.

• Counselling Fee: ₹30,000 (General); ₹20,000 (Reserved Category).

• Confirmation Fee: ₹20,000 (General); ₹20,000 (Reserved Category).

This means a student from the general category ends up paying a total of ₹54,000 (application + counselling + confirmation). For many students—especially from marginalised and economically weaker backgrounds—this is a huge burden even before admission is confirmed.

Student-Led Resistance: Who Raised the Voice?

The resistance against the counselling fee started at the grassroots level—by the students, for the students. A petition was circulated online, demanding that the Consortium of NLUs revise the fee structure and make it inclusive.

Prominent student bodies that backed this movement include:

• Savitribai Intersectional Study Circle at NALSAR

• NALSAR Student Bar Council

• NLSIU’s Savitri Phule Ambedkar Caravan (SPAC)

• DNLU Jabalpur Student Council

• DSNLU Student Bar Association

• NLIU Bhopal SPAC

Their collective voice forms a powerful message: Legal education should not be a privilege reserved for the wealthy.

What Are the Students Demanding?

The student petition highlights several concerns:

1. Financial Exclusion

Students from low-income families often don't have access to loans before admission is confirmed. The current system requires a large upfront payment, which is impractical for many.

2. Structural Barriers

Instead of simplifying the process, the two-tiered counselling and confirmation fee structure (₹30,000 + ₹20,000) introduced in 2023 has made it more complicated and expensive.

3. Lack of Refund Policy

If a student decides to withdraw from the counselling process, no refund is given. This is seen as exploitative, especially when some students are forced to opt out due to financial constraints.

4. Merger and Reduction of Fees

Students propose a single, reduced one-time payment, with a full refund policy for those who opt out before final allocation.

Legal Action Begins: Cases in Delhi and Kerala High Courts

The student movement took a legal turn when three CLAT 2025 aspirants, with support from the Legal Collective for Students’ Rights (LCSR), filed a petition in the Kerala High Court. A similar plea was also filed in the Delhi High Court by another candidate.

Kerala High Court Case

• Date of Hearing: July 31, 2025

• Petitioners: Three law aspirants supported by LCSR

• Core Argument: The ₹50,000 fee is unconstitutional, creates economic discrimination, and violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Education with Dignity).

Delhi High Court Case

• Date of Hearing: September 9, 2025

• Petitioner: Individual aspirant

• Core Argument: The counselling process should have a clear refund mechanism and be aligned with the NEP’s goal of inclusive education.

Both High Courts have agreed to examine the matter, raising hopes among thousands of aspirants.

What Does the National Education Policy (NEP) Say?

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 stresses the importance of equity and inclusion in education, particularly for:

• Economically weaker sections

• SC/ST/OBC communities

• First-generation learners

According to NEP:

“No student should be denied access to higher education due to financial constraints.”

Student groups argue that the current CLAT fee structure violates this principle, acting as a financial filter rather than an academic one.

Analysing the Consortium of NLUs’ Perspective

The Consortium of NLUs, responsible for conducting CLAT, has so far justified the ₹50,000 fee as follows:

• Administrative costs: Running the centralised counselling portal, maintaining databases, and handling allotments.

• Ensuring seriousness: A higher fee allegedly prevents casual applications or seat blocking.

• Transparency: The fee system is pre-disclosed in official notifications.

However, critics argue that:

• The same goals can be achieved with lower fees.

• Technology costs have reduced, making administration cheaper.

• Fee amounts should not be used as a deterrent against misuse.

Ground Reality: What Happens to Students Who Can’t Pay?

Let’s consider the case of Anjali (name changed), a CLAT aspirant from Bihar whose father is a daily wage worker. She scored well in CLAT 2025 but could not pay the ₹50,000 counselling fee in time. Despite qualifying, she lost the opportunity to get into a National Law University.

This is not an isolated case. Several similar stories are emerging from rural India, Dalit households, and first-gen learners.

The problem isn't lack of merit—it’s lack of means.

Public Outcry: Social Media, Petitions, and Solidarity

The online petition against the CLAT fee gathered thousands of signatures within days. On social media, hashtags like:

• #CLATFeeWaiver

• #MakeLawInclusive

• #RefundCLATFee
  have trended across platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and LinkedIn.

Lawyers, professors, alumni of NLUs, and even practicing judges have expressed concern over the exclusionary nature of the fee system.

Broader Implications: Is It Just About CLAT?

No. This issue raises broader questions:

• Should professional education come at such high upfront costs?

• Are public-funded universities accessible only to the middle and upper class?

• Is the current system violating constitutional rights?

The CLAT fee debate could set a precedent for other entrance tests, including medical and engineering admissions, especially in publicly funded institutions.

What Can Be Done? Suggested Solutions

Merge Counselling and Confirmation Fees

A single consolidated fee of ₹20,000–₹25,000 would be more reasonable.

Introduce Installment Plans

Allow students to pay the amount in 2–3 parts, reducing the burden on families.

Make Fees Refundable

If a student opts out before the final round of seat allocation, they should get a refund (after deducting minimal administrative charges).

Set Up a Financial Assistance Cell

Just like IITs and IIMs have financial aid offices, NLUs should set up a pre-admission assistance mechanism.

Full Transparency

Counselling rules, refund policies, and seat allocation details should be made public and easy to understand.

What Legal Experts Are Saying

Renowned legal experts and educationists have weighed in on the matter:

• Justice (Retd.) A.P. Shah: “Such high fees in a public entrance process create structural inequality and are legally questionable.”

• Prof. Faizan Mustafa (Former VC, NALSAR): “If the CLAT Consortium is non-profit and public in nature, it must align its actions with social justice goals.”

• Advocate Karuna Nundy: “Charging ₹50,000 from aspirants—many of whom are yet to get into college—without a refund policy is unjust enrichment.”

The Road Ahead: What Happens Next?

With hearings scheduled in two High Courts, the following outcomes are possible:

1. Judicial Intervention: Courts may direct the Consortium to reduce or refund the counselling fee, or ask for a review of the process.

2. Policy Reform: The Ministry of Education or UGC may step in, issuing guidelines for reasonable counselling fees in centralised entrance tests.

3. Voluntary Reform by NLUs: Under public pressure, the Consortium may announce changes on its own to avoid negative publicity and court rulings.

4. National Debate: This case could trigger larger legal and policy reforms across entrance tests in India.

Final Thoughts: A Fight for Access, Not Concession

This isn't just a fee protest. It’s a larger demand for justice in education.

The legal profession in India needs diversity—not just in terms of gender or caste—but also in economic representation. If financial hurdles prevent bright, hardworking students from entering law schools, we weaken the very foundation of justice.

The courts stepping in gives hope. But the real change will come only when institutions recognise that access is a right, not a luxury.

Conclusion

The challenge against the ₹50,000 CLAT counselling fee is more than a legal battle—it’s a movement to make legal education inclusive, affordable, and fair. With the judiciary now stepping in, the spotlight is on the Consortium of NLUsto align its fee structure with the values of equity and access enshrined in the Constitution and the NEP.

Whether you're a law aspirant, educator, or policymaker, this case is a reminder: the true test of justice starts not in courts—but at the doors of opportunity.