Court questions whether additional deprivation points can effectively modify CUET-based merit
The Delhi High Court has intervened in the 2026–27 admission process of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) over its policy of awarding Deprivation Points to certain candidates.
The issue has assumed significance because JNU’s admission system uses CUET scores, while deprivation points are added to the candidate’s score for specified categories and circumstances. The Court has prima facie questioned whether such additional points effectively alter the marks obtained by a candidate in the Common University Entrance Test (CUET).
WHAT ARE DEPRIVATION POINTS?
Under JNU’s 2026–27 postgraduate admission prospectus, candidates can receive deprivation points of up to 12 points in specified circumstances.
The system provides additional points based, among other things, on the educational background and district classification of candidates. The prospectus identifies certain districts as Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 districts using factors including female illiteracy, agricultural workers, rural population and households without toilets.
The prospectus also provides deprivation-point benefits to certain categories, including eligible female/transgender candidates and Kashmiri migrants.
For example, the prospectus provides up to 6 points for certain Quartile 1 candidates at the UG level and 3 points at the PG level, with different benefits for Quartile 2 candidates.
WHY DID THE MATTER REACH THE HIGH COURT?
The challenge concerns whether JNU can add these deprivation points to the CUET-based merit calculation in a manner that changes the effective competitive score of candidates.
The Court has prima facie observed that deprivation points may operate as an addition to the CUET score itself. This raises an important legal question:
Can a university, while admitting students through a national entrance examination, subsequently add institutional points which effectively modify the candidate’s examination score for determining merit?
The issue is particularly significant because even a small difference in marks can determine admission to highly competitive postgraduate programmes.
WHAT HAS THE COURT DIRECTED?
The Delhi High Court has directed that JNU should not finalise admissions on the basis of the disputed deprivation-point mechanism while the issue remains under consideration.
The Court’s intervention has affected the ongoing admission process, including subsequent procedural steps connected with admissions.
The matter is listed for further consideration, and the Court is yet to finally determine the legality of JNU’s deprivation-point policy.
IMPORTANT: NO FINAL FINDING YET
The Court’s interim intervention should not be understood as a final declaration that JNU’s deprivation-point policy is unlawful.
At this stage, the Court is examining the legality and consequences of the mechanism. The ultimate validity of the policy will depend upon the Court’s final determination after considering the statutory framework, JNU’s admission regulations, the CUET framework and the competing arguments of the parties.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
The case raises a broader question concerning the relationship between:
CUET-based merit + University admission regulations + affirmative/deprivation measures.
Universities have considerable autonomy in designing admission policies, but such policies must operate within the governing statutory and regulatory framework and remain consistent with constitutional principles, including equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The matter therefore has significance beyond JNU. Any judicial finding concerning the permissible extent of additional marks or institutional weightage could have implications for university admission policies where an external entrance examination is used as the primary basis of selection.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The Delhi High Court is expected to examine the issue further at the next hearing. The eventual decision may determine whether:
1. JNU can continue awarding deprivation points in their present form;
2. the mechanism requires modification; 3. the existing admission lists can remain undisturbed; or
4. any consequential changes are required in the merit/admission process.
Until a final determination is made, candidates should distinguish between the interim directions of the Court and the ultimate adjudication on the validity of deprivation points.
Key Legal Insight:
The case demonstrates that even where an institution has academic and administrative autonomy, its admission methodology remains subject to judicial review when the method of determining merit is alleged to produce an arbitrary or legally impermissible alteration of competitive scores.