There are only three real outcomes that are worth considering when you talk about ranking colleges. It honestly doesnt matter what infra is like or if students enjoy hostel food. That stuff might be an inconvenience in the short term, but you forget about it once you graduate. Here are the three things that matter:

1) Graduate outcomes: What percentage of graduates from the last three batches have gotten jobs they are relatively pleased with within 6 months of graduating? This should be the first thing you consider. Honestly, you could live in AC rooms on a campus that has Olympic-size pools, equestrian sports, and a helipad-—what difference does it make to you? Is the university enriching itself or is it actually providing value to you?

2) Faculty quality and rigor—even if you don't have good graduate outcomes now, if you have decent faculty and a high standard for academic work, within the next five years your university can improve enough that you will be employable. And find your way in the law world eventually. Count the student-teacher ratio in faculty quality. How likely are you to be taught by faculty who can make a call and get you a job?

3) Peer quality-—Even if graduate outcomes are bad and faculty are bad and there's no rigor, will you be surrounded by enough driven people that will keep you on your toes and challenge you and will work with you so you leave school knowing the law and having some idea of how to navigate the real world?

This is literally all that matters. The city, size of the college, how wealthy the students are, sex ratio, moot court wins, hostel rooms, food—all of that doesn't count for anything really unless you have at least one of these other three. There are plenty of people in Delhi who go to colleges where they get none of these things—but they might get access to the big city, they might be wealthy, and they might even get good infrastructure—it doesn't matter at all—they don't get jobs, they don't advance in their careers, and eventually they can't hack it in the legal world. I've seen NLUs where they don't have these three criteria and they sell themselves on infrastructure or on one team recently winning one moot—infrastructure doesn't follow you once you leave the university, and one team winning a moot somewhere doesn't actually mean some good work is being done at the university that you can benefit from. It might simply be that the team is well-connected or fortunate. Besides, moots don't lead to jobs unless you win a big international one. Many private universities spend a lot on infrastructure up front because they know they will make the money back by charging exorbitant fees to parents who assume "big building/campus = serious education project." If you go to a university to visit and theyre selling you on infra- big red flag. Consider that youre paying for all of that and consider if the ROI is there.

It seems to me that people know so little about how higher education works, and parents and prospective students are so ill-prepared that they don't have the first idea what they're looking at and are clueless when they're being sold a bill of goods.

Big caveat: this answer assumes you want to be a lawyer and are middle class/unconnected. If you don't really care about being a lawyer, or your dad is already someone big who can assure you employment, go waste your money wherever you want; who even cares?