The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 4) stayed the Delhi High Court’s ruling which had set aside the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) notification mandating CLAT-PG scores for the recruitment of Young Professional (Legal) officers.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim stay and issued notice on NHAI’s Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court decision.

Appearing for NHAI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the engagement was only for a two-year contractual term and shortlisting based on CLAT-PG scores provided a practical and rational mechanism. He pointed out that thousands of applications are received for such legal posts—citing the example of around 5,000 applicants for a Delhi Public Prosecutor position—and interviews take a prolonged period if done independently.

The SG further referred to a Kerala High Court verdict (NTPC v. Aishwarya Mohan) that had upheld a similar recruitment policy relying on CLAT-PG scores. While an SLP is pending against that judgment as well, there is no stay granted by the Supreme Court, he said.

CJI Kant, drawing parallels with technical recruitments based on GATE scores, remarked that such exams are similarly used as a filtering mechanism. Justice Bagchi added that judicial services also rely on entrance examinations, and delegating such testing to bodies like CLAT should not be seen as problematic.

The Bench questioned the objection, noting that NHAI’s criteria ensured transparency and non-discrimination in selecting young law graduates for a limited tenure. “What is the issue if the goal is only shortlisting for two years?” the CJI asked.

Counsel for the respondent contended that CLAT-PG is meant for admissions to postgraduate law programmes and does not reflect the practical legal expertise that experienced advocates possess.

The Supreme Court, while staying the High Court order, tagged the matter with the pending petition relating to the Kerala High Court case.

The Delhi High Court had earlier held that a score designed for determining eligibility for higher legal studies cannot be the benchmark for public employment, branding the reliance on CLAT-PG as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Case: National Highways Authority of India vs Shannu Baghel | SLP(C) No. 33251/2025