In the present situation, most of the seats under domicile reservations are taken up by people from privileged backgrounds living in capital cities. There are a number of valid reasons behind caste-based reservations but I wanted to know the justification for domicile reservations.
1. States have a legitimate interest in retaining these domicile reservations for persons belonging to their states. It brings in well- and nationally-qualified professionals into their state economy since many (at least in my knowledge) are not hesitant about practicing in their home state.
2. Taxes and funding are of course provided by the States in most cases, so retaining an interest (besides assets and land) makes sense. Plus, these assets alone too do not come on a pure gift/donation basis. Its essentially the state according that patch of land.
3. Thinking of it logically, the 'national' in NLU does not actually confer some mandate to run a nation-wide meritocracy of sorts. 1 and 2 can overrun these meritocratic concerns without taking away the essence of meriocracy/~merit list~ folks.
As again, I do not feel passionately about any of these things. Its just the need to understand that everything has a basis in who is according what benefit to the university.
As if the judiciary has never been wrong in the seven decades of functioning in the current system. Stop treating them like princes of the legal realm [Dworkin].
State institutions --> state funding --> state's need to provide people more likely to work in its lower courts, high courts (due to connections to land, home considerations) an opportunity to benefit from education available at these institutions.
What does the average Karnataka or Telangana resident care for an institution that gives 'his business' (in terms of spending) and 'expertise' to a Delhi or a Mumbai? One could argue against this logic if students of NLSIU, NALSAR, NUJS, and others were willing to sign up bonds to work for 5-years in the local courts of the state where they gain an education.
You may be tempted to counter with - 'but my institution gets little funding from the state.' And yes, that is true. Little funding in form of recurring expenditure, but massive in form of capital expenditure. Massive as it is the state's expenditure that created the buildings and larger infrastructure to allow the University to be. Further, what many of you are not privy to is that non-teaching employees in most of these institutions (I know for a fact for NALSAR and NUJS) are paid for by the state. Thus, the state also chips in with the recurring kharchas even if these might not be apparent upfront.
Finally, do you know that in some places these domiciles came not via the state governments, but via 'your batchmates and seniors'? NALSAR has a state domicile because a 2015 batch graduate (2010 entry) went to court seeking that such 'domiciles' should exist. The netas then piled on as they usually do.
At NUJS, no non-teaching employee gets their salary paid for by the state. Do not spread misinformation. State occasionally pays money for campus maintenance, that too not more than a crore on an annual average, which stopped in 2019.
Around 5 acres of plot in one of the most posh localities - and infrastructure. And you say that state has not given a dime? The entire existence of NLUs is because of intial capital funding by the States.
No, I am only saying that you should spend more time reading something before responding to it. Nowhere in my comment has any mention been made of capital expenditure. I said state does not fund the salary of non teaching employees (or teaching ones). I also mentioned that it has provided funds for campus maintenance till 2019. If you read everything with that level of diligence, then your clients are probably in for a shock.
NLUs are established and funded by the state government. State government get by raising funds from folks living in that state. So, logic is while we are a quasi-federal country why should the government of Punjab pay for a university which is of national in character? If the centre is not footing the bill then the only way it makes sense is if there is something in it for Punjabis. And that is how domicile quota comes into the picture. Not sure if RGNUL has a domicile quota, using Punjab just for illustration purpose.
2. Taxes and funding are of course provided by the States in most cases, so retaining an interest (besides assets and land) makes sense. Plus, these assets alone too do not come on a pure gift/donation basis. Its essentially the state according that patch of land.
3. Thinking of it logically, the 'national' in NLU does not actually confer some mandate to run a nation-wide meritocracy of sorts. 1 and 2 can overrun these meritocratic concerns without taking away the essence of meriocracy/~merit list~ folks.
As again, I do not feel passionately about any of these things. Its just the need to understand that everything has a basis in who is according what benefit to the university.
What does the average Karnataka or Telangana resident care for an institution that gives 'his business' (in terms of spending) and 'expertise' to a Delhi or a Mumbai? One could argue against this logic if students of NLSIU, NALSAR, NUJS, and others were willing to sign up bonds to work for 5-years in the local courts of the state where they gain an education.
You may be tempted to counter with - 'but my institution gets little funding from the state.' And yes, that is true. Little funding in form of recurring expenditure, but massive in form of capital expenditure. Massive as it is the state's expenditure that created the buildings and larger infrastructure to allow the University to be. Further, what many of you are not privy to is that non-teaching employees in most of these institutions (I know for a fact for NALSAR and NUJS) are paid for by the state. Thus, the state also chips in with the recurring kharchas even if these might not be apparent upfront.
Finally, do you know that in some places these domiciles came not via the state governments, but via 'your batchmates and seniors'? NALSAR has a state domicile because a 2015 batch graduate (2010 entry) went to court seeking that such 'domiciles' should exist. The netas then piled on as they usually do.
So, logic is while we are a quasi-federal country why should the government of Punjab pay for a university which is of national in character? If the centre is not footing the bill then the only way it makes sense is if there is something in it for Punjabis. And that is how domicile quota comes into the picture.
Not sure if RGNUL has a domicile quota, using Punjab just for illustration purpose.