The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to two students whose admissions to premier institutions were jeopardized after they narrowly missed the minimum Class XII eligibility marks and later opted for CBSE compartment and improvement examinations. The Court observed that the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) cannot frame a rule allowing candidates to become eligible after revised results while simultaneously fixing a deadline that makes compliance impossible.
Justice Jasmeet Singh heard two writ petitions filed by Daksh Singhal Through His Father and Natural Guardian, Kailash Chandra Meena and Paras Batra, both challenging cancellation of their provisionally allotted seats under the JoSAA 2026 counselling process.
Background of the Case
Daksh Singhal, an ST category candidate, secured an ST rank of 144 in JEE (Advanced) 2026 and was provisionally allotted a B.Tech. (Mechanical Engineering) seat at IIT Delhi. However, his admission was cancelled after he scored 64.2% in Class XII Mathematics, falling just short of the required 65%.
The second petitioner, Paras Batra, a candidate with benchmark disability (PwD), had been allotted a B.Arch. seat at the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. His seat too was cancelled because his Class XII aggregate stood at 64.8%, below the prescribed 65% threshold for PwD candidates.
Both students had registered for CBSE compartment or improvement examinations scheduled for 28 July 2026, hoping to improve their marks and regain eligibility. However, JoSAA's Business Rules required revised results to be submitted by 15 July 2026, before those examinations were even conducted.
Court's Observations
During the hearing, JoSAA argued that counselling had already concluded and courts could not direct educational authorities to depart from the admission rules. The respondents relied on earlier Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions emphasizing that admission brochures and eligibility conditions must ordinarily be followed strictly.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, however, distinguished those precedents. The Court noted that the petitioners were not seeking relaxation of eligibility criteria or any direction contrary to the Business Rules.
The bench observed,
"Rule 72B of the JoSAA 2026 Business Rules becomes illusionary and moonshine without any meaningful interpretation."
The Court further observed that once JoSAA itself permits candidates to improve their scores through compartment or improvement examinations, the rule must operate in a practical manner. Fixing a submission deadline before the CBSE examinations are held would automatically exclude every such candidate from consideration.
Justice Singh remarked that students spend months preparing for admission to prestigious institutions and should not suffer because the schedules of CBSE examinations and JoSAA counselling are not aligned.
Court's Decision
Finding that both petitioners had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favour, the High Court held that Rule 72(B) should receive a meaningful interpretation. The Court noted that if the petitioners successfully clear their compartment or improvement examinations, a supernumerary seat can be created in the same programme in which they were originally allotted admission, as contemplated under the JoSAA Business Rules.
The matters have been listed for further hearing on 21 August 2026. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioners to seek an earlier hearing if their CBSE results are declared before that date.
Case Details
Case Title: Daksh Singhal Through His Father and Natural Guardian, Sh. Kailash Chandra Meena v. Union of India & Ors. with Paras Batra v. Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) 2026 Through Its Chairman & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9503/2026 & W.P.(C) 9556/2026
Judge: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Decision Date: 17 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
