The Delhi High Court has permitted a NEET-UG 2026 candidate to participate in the ongoing NRI quota counselling after finding that a newly introduced requirement concerning proof of guardianship could not, at this stage, operate as an absolute bar to his participation.
Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the order on September 8, 2026, in a petition challenging a Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) notice dated May 27, 2026. The Court directed that the candidate be allowed to participate subject to submission of an affidavit from the proposed NRI sponsor and documents showing the sponsor’s financial capacity.
The petitioner’s extended family resides outside India, and his maternal uncle, Shailesh Ashokrao Patil, undertook to bear his coaching, NEET-UG examination and MBBS education expenses.
The petitioner said that NRI quota admissions had, since 2017, been permitted on the basis of an affidavit from the NRI sponsor, following the Supreme Court’s order dated August 22, 2017. According to him, the MCC’s May 27, 2026 notice introduced a new requirement that an NRI sponsor establish legal guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. He argued that obtaining such an order would take considerable time and prevent him from taking part in the counselling process.
The respondents opposed interim relief, arguing that the requirement was part of a policy intended to prevent bogus or manufactured claims and that interference during the ongoing counselling could disturb the schedule.
Justice Jasmeet Singh found that the requirement requiring evidence that the sponsor had actually looked after the student as a guardian appeared subjective.
"The requirement of producing 'evidence' to establish that the sponsor has looked after the student as his guardian appears to be subjective and cannot, at this stage, constitute an absolute bar to the petitioner’s participation in the NRI counselling process," the Court observed.
The Court held that the respondents’ concern should primarily be directed towards preventing admission claims based on bogus or manufactured documents. It found that an affidavit from the proposed sponsor, supported by documents establishing his financial ability to meet the petitioner’s educational expenses, would adequately address that concern at this stage.
The Court concluded that the petitioner had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in his favour. It also noted that denying participation in the ongoing counselling could result in an opportunity that might not be adequately compensated later if the petitioner was ultimately found eligible for NRI quota admission.
Accordingly, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the ongoing NRI quota counselling after he furnished the proposed sponsor’s affidavit along with sufficient documentary proof of financial capacity. The Court clarified that his participation would remain subject to the final outcome of the petition. The matter was listed for September 9, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Anish Sandeep Patil (Minor) Through His Father Sandeep Hemant Patil v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12984/2026 & CM APPL. 60316/2026
Judge: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Decision Date: September 8, 2026
-300x169.webp)
