Delhi High Court: No Deprivation Points for JNU Admissions

• The Delhi High Court restrained Jawaharlal Nehru University from finalizing postgraduate course admissions based on deprivation points.
• Deprivation points are additional marks awarded to candidates based on their previous schooling location and can amount to up to 36 additional marks.
• The court raised concerns about the impact of deprivation points on the sanctity of competitive exams, including the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) scores.
• The ruling may set a precedent for challenging the use of deprivation points in Indian universities.

The Delhi High Court intervened in Jawaharlal Nehru University's (JNU) admissions process, issuing an interim order that restrains the university from finalizing postgraduate course admissions based on 'deprivation points'. Deprivation points are additional marks awarded to candidates based on their previous schooling location. JNU's 2026–27 prospectus allows for up to 12 deprivation points, equivalent to 36 additional marks. The court's order was passed by Justice Jasmeet Singh on August 14.

The use of deprivation points in university admissions has been a contentious issue in India. JNU's policy aims to ensure an adequate number of students from different regions, but the court raised concerns about the impact on the sanctity of competitive exams. The Common University Entrance Test (CUET) scores are altered by deprivation points, which could undermine the concept of a competitive exam. The court observed that this would allow universities to alter candidate scores through ordinances, rather than adhering to the marks obtained in the entrance exam.

The Delhi High Court's ruling has significant implications for university admissions policies and the use of deprivation points. Lawyers should note that this decision may set a precedent for challenging the use of deprivation points in Indian universities. The court's emphasis on the sanctity of competitive exams highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of entrance exams. This ruling also underscores the need for universities to adhere to established marks and scores, rather than manipulating them through ordinances.

Lawyers should watch for potential precedent-setting implications of this ruling, particularly regarding the use of deprivation points in university admissions and the sanctity of competitive exams.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench