The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict in a landmark case concerning the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and its recent decision to use CLAT-PG scores as the sole criterion for recruiting lawyers. The matter, challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Shannu Baghel, raises critical questions about the scope of academic examinations in professional employment and the constitutional principles of fairness in public recruitment.
Background of the Case
On August 11, 2025, NHAI issued a notification stating that CLAT-PG scores would determine the eligibility of candidates for lawyer recruitment. The petitioner argued that CLAT-PG, designed exclusively for admission to postgraduate law programs, is not suitable for evaluating professional legal competence such as drafting, advocacy, or client counseling. The case, Shannu Baghel v. Union of India & Anr., was heard by a division bench consisting of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. After extensive arguments, the Court has temporarily halted the recruitment process pending the final verdict.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Advocate Baghel contended that:
- CLAT-PG is academic, not professional: The exam assesses research aptitude and academic knowledge, not practical legal skills required for NHAI employment.
- Arbitrary exclusion: Lawyers with substantial experience but no CLAT-PG scores are unfairly excluded, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Lack of rational nexus: Using CLAT-PG scores for recruitment does not align with the objective of hiring competent legal professionals.
- Chilling effect on recruitment: The policy may discourage merit-based professional evaluation in favor of academic testing.
The petitioner sought quashing of the notification and a directive for NHAI to adopt a transparent, merit-based recruitment process.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Union of India and NHAI defended the policy, arguing that:
- Standardization and transparency: CLAT-PG provides a uniform, objective benchmark for legal knowledge across India.
- Complex legal requirements: NHAI requires lawyers with strong analytical and legal knowledge to handle contracts, arbitration, and regulatory matters.
- Equal opportunity: All LL.B graduates can appear for CLAT-PG, and the notification does not discriminate.
- Willingness to reconsider: NHAI expressed openness to modify criteria in consultation with stakeholders.
Court Observations
The bench appeared concerned about:
- Mismatch of purpose: CLAT-PG’s academic nature versus practical employment requirements.
- NHAI’s reconsideration: Indicating awareness of potential limitations in using CLAT-PG scores exclusively.
By halting recruitment, the Court emphasized the serious constitutional questions at stake regarding fairness, rationality, and proportionality in public employment.
Broader Implications
The verdict could have far-reaching consequences:
- Upholding the notification: May allow other public institutions to adopt CLAT-PG-based recruitment, introducing standardization but possibly excluding experienced professionals.
- Striking down the notification: Would reaffirm that academic tests cannot replace professional evaluation and safeguard constitutional recruitment principles.
Legal experts and law students are closely monitoring the outcome, as it could influence recruitment policies across statutory bodies and government institutions, balancing merit, transparency, and practical competence. The Delhi High Court’s final order will set a crucial precedent for the intersection of academic examinations and professional recruitment in India.
