JNU Admissions 2026-27: Delhi HC Puts Deprivation-Point System On Hold, Says Adding Marks To CUET Scores Could Undermine Exam Sanctity

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to keep on hold admissions and all further action based on its "deprivation points" system for the 2026-27 academic session, observing that the mechanism prima facie permits the university to effectively add marks to a candidate's score in the Common University Entrance Test (CUET).

Justice Jasmeet Singh, while hearing a petition challenging JNU's deprivation-point policy, said that allowing the university to add marks to scores secured by candidates in a competitive entrance examination could undermine the sanctity of the examination.

Also Watch:

The court directed that until the next date of hearing, JNU shall not finalise admissions on the basis of deprivation points and shall not take any further steps based on such points in relation to admissions.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 24.

The petition has been filed by Amit Mehra, an aspiring postgraduate student, challenging Section V of JNU's e-Prospectus for the academic session 2026-27. The petitioner has specifically questioned the provision under which candidates can receive up to 12 deprivation points, based, among other factors, on the geographical location of their previous schooling.

Under the policy, one deprivation point is equivalent to three marks. This means that a candidate could potentially receive an additional 36 marks through the deprivation-point mechanism.

The petitioner has sought directions to JNU to prepare merit lists, rankings and admission outcomes solely on the basis of candidates' raw CUET scores, normalized marks or percentiles, without adding deprivation points or other regional weightage.

JNU opposed the plea and submitted that the deprivation-point system formed part of its policy intended to ensure adequate representation of students from different parts of the country. The university's counsel also relied on the First Schedule of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966, which requires the institution to take special measures to facilitate students and teachers from across India to join the university.

The university further submitted that the policy had been considered and approved by its Academic Council following due deliberation.

However, the High Court said it was prima facie unable to accept JNU's contention.

The court observed that through deprivation points, the university had effectively altered the marks obtained by a student in the entrance examination. It noted that the mechanism gives JNU the ability to add up to 12 points to a candidate's score.

The court further observed that the provisions relied upon by JNU did not, prima facie, authorise the university to add marks to scores obtained by candidates in a competitive examination.

Justice Singh observed that if such a mechanism were permitted, the sanctity of an entrance examination could be compromised. The court said allowing a university to alter a candidate's score after a competitive examination would run contrary to the basic concept of such an examination.

During the hearing, the court also took note of JNU's submission that offer letters had already been issued to 1,500 postgraduate and 451 undergraduate candidates.

The petitioner's counsel argued that allowing admissions to proceed on the basis of deprivation points could create an irreversible situation if the court subsequently found the mechanism impermissible.

The High Court agreed that completing the admission process in the meantime could create complications and potentially make the situation difficult to reverse.

Accordingly, the court ordered JNU not to finalise admissions based on deprivation points and restrained the university from taking any further steps on the basis of such points until the next hearing.

The court has issued notice on the petition and granted JNU four days to file its response. Notice has also been directed to be served on the second respondent through all available modes, including electronic service.

The court took documents handed over during the hearing on record and listed the matter for August 24.

The interim direction does not finally decide the legality of JNU's deprivation-point policy. The university's response and further arguments will be considered when the matter comes up for hearing next week.

(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)