Delhi HC Allows Minor to Join NRI Quota MBBS Counselling, Questions MCC's Guardianship Requirement

Delhi High Court prima facie finds MCC's new NRI quota condition—requiring proof that a sponsor actually raised the student—subjective and an unfair bar to NEET-UG 2026 counselling.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, sitting singly at the High Court of Delhi, directed the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) on 8 September 2026 to allow a NEET-UG 2026 candidate to participate in the ongoing NRI quota counselling round, despite the petitioner's inability to meet a new sponsorship condition introduced by the MCC in May 2026. The court found, at the prima facie stage, that requiring a proposed NRI sponsor to produce evidence of having “looked after the student as his/her guardian” introduces a subjective criterion that cannot operate as an absolute bar — particularly where the sponsor is the petitioner's maternal uncle and has undertaken to bear the full cost of the MBBS course. The order applies conditionally: the petitioner must furnish an affidavit from the sponsor along with documentary proof of financial capacity.

The NEET-UG Student and His NRI Sponsor

The petitioner, Anish Sandeep Patil, is a minor born on 30 October 2008. He appeared in the NEET-UG 2026 examination and secured the requisite cut-off marks. His extended family resides outside India. One Mr. Shailesh Ashokrao Patil, his maternal uncle (mama), undertook to bear the coaching expenses, the cost of the NEET-UG examination, and the educational expenses of the MBBS course.

Since 2017, NRI quota admissions at deemed universities had been permitted on the basis of an affidavit from the NRI sponsor. This practice flowed from a Supreme Court order dated 22 August 2017 in Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka v. Union of India, and continued through 2024 and 2025.

The Impugned MCC Notice of 27 May 2026

By a notice dated 27 May 2026, the MCC introduced a revised framework for NRI quota sponsorship. The notice specified which relatives could qualify as sponsors — including real brothers and sisters of the father or mother, grandparents on both sides, and first-degree paternal and maternal cousins — and required each such person to be an NRI ordinarily residing abroad.

Two conditions proved critical for the petitioner. Clause (d) of the notice required that the sponsor must have “looked after the student as his/her guardian,” and that evidence to that effect must be produced before the Committee. Clause (e) required an affidavit attesting to the facts in clause (d). The MCC's notice additionally required formal legal guardianship established under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The petitioner contends that obtaining a guardianship order under that Act is time-consuming and that the requirement was introduced shortly before the counselling process, making compliance practically impossible. The second round of NRI quota counselling was underway from 3 September 2026 to 9 September 2026, leaving him no meaningful window to comply.

Respondents' Objection: Policy and Schedule

Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, appearing as counsel for the Union of India, opposed interim relief on two grounds. First, she argued that the new requirement is a legitimate policy measure designed to prevent bogus and manufactured claims, ensuring that sponsors have genuinely looked after the students they propose to fund. Second, she submitted that the second round of counselling was already underway and that any interim order would disturb the counselling schedule.

The Court's Reasoning on Clauses (d) and (e)

Justice Jasmeet Singh acknowledged the respondents' concern about preventing fraudulent admissions under the NRI quota. He did not dismiss that concern. He drew a line, however, between a legitimate safeguard and a condition whose application would be inherently variable.

The court observed that the respondents' concern ought, at this prima facie stage, to be “limited to ensuring that admission under the NRI quota is not sought on the basis of bogus or manufactured documents.” The requirement that the sponsor must prove he actually looked after the student as a guardian, the court held, introduces a criterion whose satisfaction “may vary from case to case.”

In the court's assessment, an affidavit from the proposed sponsor, supported by documentary material demonstrating his financial capacity to meet the educational expenses, would adequately address the respondents' legitimate concerns at this stage. The requirement of producing evidence of guardianship could not, at this juncture, function as an absolute bar to participation in the counselling process — particularly given that the proposed sponsor is admittedly the petitioner's maternal uncle and has undertaken to bear the entire educational cost.

On irreparable loss, the court noted that the petitioner had secured the requisite marks in NEET-UG 2026. If barred from the ongoing counselling process and later found entitled to admission under the NRI quota, the opportunity lost in the intervening period would not be compensable in monetary terms. This finding, combined with the prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner, satisfied the threshold for an ad-interim injunction.

Scope of the Interim Direction

The court was careful to confine the relief. The direction to the MCC to permit the petitioner's participation in the ongoing NRI quota counselling is conditional on the petitioner furnishing an affidavit from the proposed sponsor along with sufficient documentary proof of the sponsor's financial capacity. Participation remains subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The court did not stay the impugned MCC notice in its entirety.

Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the respondents to file a detailed counter-affidavit or reply before the next date of hearing.

Order

In CM APPL. 60316/2026, the application for ad-interim ex-parte injunction was disposed of with the conditional direction: subject to the petitioner furnishing the sponsor's affidavit and documentary proof of financial capacity, the MCC is directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the ongoing NRI quota counselling. Participation is subject to the final outcome of W.P.(C) 12984/2026.

CM APPL. 60317/2026, an exemption application, was allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of. The writ petition W.P.(C) 12984/2026 is listed for 9 September 2026.