Delhi High Court Allows Pre-2021 OCI Student Into JAC Engineering Counselling; Holds Supreme Court Parity Applies, Directs Merit-Based Seat and Permits Supernumerary Admission
Delhi High Court Directs JAC Delhi to Allot Engineering Seat to OCI Student; Finds Exclusion Contrary to Supreme Court’s Anushka Rengunthwar Ruling
Facts
The petitioner, Aarav Dhawan, a minor represented through his father and natural guardian, filed a writ petition seeking permission to register and participate in the Joint Admission Committee (JAC) Counselling Programme for admission to undergraduate engineering courses in Delhi government-funded universities.
He had completed his entire schooling in India and passed Class XII from the CBSE, Delhi, in 2026. He was born in Houston, U.S.A., and held an OCI card issued on 31 October 2019, i.e. before the Central Government’s notification dated 4 March 2021. He appeared in JEE 2026 under the OCI/PIO category, scored 99.21 percentile and secured All India Rank 12,617.
When JAC registration opened in May 2026, the portal did not allow OCI cardholders to register. His representation to the grievance committee also produced no relief.
The petitioner pointed out that the closing ranks for DTU Computer Science Engineering in later rounds were 12,771, 12,966 and 14,806, meaning candidates lower in merit than him obtained admission while he was excluded solely because of his OCI status.
Issues
The principal issues were whether:
- OCI cardholders who obtained their status before 4 March 2021 are entitled to be treated at par with Indian nationals for JAC Delhi counselling;
- the Supreme Court judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India applies beyond medical admissions and extends to engineering counselling;
- JAC counselling falls within the expression “such other tests” used in the 4 March 2021 OCI notification;
- the petitioner’s failure to separately challenge the JAC brochure barred relief;
- DASA counselling provided an effective alternative;
- exclusion of the petitioner while lower-ranked candidates were admitted violated equality and fairness; and
- a supernumerary seat could be created if no regular seat remained available.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner relied heavily on Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 209, arguing that the 4 March 2021 notification restricting OCI candidates to NRI or supernumerary seats operates prospectively.
He submitted that OCI cardholders who obtained their cards before that date continue to enjoy the rights available under the earlier regime and must therefore be treated at par with Indian nationals.
He also argued that DASA was not a viable alternative because its eligibility conditions required an OCI candidate to have studied abroad for at least two of the preceding eight years, including Classes XI/XII. Since he had completed his entire education in India, he was ineligible for DASA.
The petitioner further relied on his better merit position compared with candidates already admitted to DTU CSE.
Respondents’ Arguments
JAC Delhi contended that its Admission Brochure expressly restricted counselling to Resident Indian Nationals, using an 85:15 seat matrix for Delhi and outside-Delhi Indian candidates.
It argued that OCI/PIO/NRI candidates were governed separately under DASA and that allowing the petitioner into JAC would disturb the published eligibility framework and legitimate expectations of other candidates.
JAC also sought to distinguish Anushka Rengunthwar on the ground that it arose in medical admissions through NEET, whereas engineering admissions use different institutional and counselling mechanisms.
It further argued that the petitioner had not challenged the JAC Admission Brochure itself.
Analysis of the Law
Pre-2021 OCI Cardholders Retain Earlier Rights
The Court treated Anushka Rengunthwar as decisive.
The Supreme Court had held that the 4 March 2021 notification would apply prospectively and that OCI cardholders similarly situated to the petitioners there would continue to enjoy the rights and privileges available before the notification.
Justice Jasmeet Singh therefore held that OCI cardholders who obtained their status before 4 March 2021 are to be treated at par with Indian nationals for the relevant admission rights protected by the Supreme Court.
JAC Falls Within “Such Other Tests”
The Court rejected the attempt to confine the 2021 notification and Anushka Rengunthwar only to NEET or expressly named examinations.
The notification specifically refers to NEET, JEE Mains, JEE Advanced and “such other tests.”
The Court held that this expression is wide enough to encompass a counselling mechanism like JAC. Merely because JAC uses JEE Main scores rather than conducting an independent examination does not justify excluding pre-2021 OCI candidates from the protection already recognised by the Supreme Court.
No Rational Basis for Excluding JAC Delhi
The Court found no intelligible differentia between pre-2021 OCI candidates participating in JAC Delhi and similarly situated OCI candidates who receive Indian-national treatment in other counselling systems.
The Court noted that JAC Chandigarh had already implemented the Supreme Court ruling by creating a category for pre-2021 OCI/PIO candidates who elect to be treated as Indian nationals.
JAC Delhi’s failure to adopt a similar approach defeated, rather than implemented, the Supreme Court’s protection.
Brochure Challenge Was Unnecessary
The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner had to separately challenge the JAC Admission Brochure.
He was not asking the Court to alter academic eligibility standards or the seat matrix. He only sought enforcement of the binding legal status already conferred upon pre-2021 OCI cardholders by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, absence of a direct challenge to the brochure did not defeat his writ.
Legitimate Expectation Could Not Override Supreme Court Law
JAC argued that allowing the petitioner to participate would affect the legitimate expectations of other candidates.
The Court rejected this submission, holding that no legitimate expectation can operate contrary to a binding Supreme Court judgment.
It described JAC’s failure to implement Anushka Rengunthwar in its true letter and spirit as a shortcoming on the authority’s part.
DASA Was Not an Effective Alternative
The Court accepted that the petitioner could not practically be relegated to DASA because he had studied entirely in India and therefore failed DASA’s foreign-education requirement.
Excluding him from both DASA and JAC created an anomalous situation in which he had no meaningful mechanism to compete for admission despite being a protected pre-2021 OCI candidate.
Precedent Analysis
Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 209
This was the central authority.
The Supreme Court held that the 4 March 2021 OCI notification could not retrospectively strip earlier OCI cardholders of rights already available to them.
The Delhi High Court applied that ratio beyond the medical-admission context and held that a pre-2021 OCI student could not be excluded from JAC merely because JAC was a separate counselling system.
Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 16 SCC 598
This authority was cited on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
The Court applied the broader principle that legitimate expectation must be reasonable and cannot be invoked in a manner inconsistent with binding law.
S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2020) 17 SCC 465
This precedent became relevant to the relief.
The Supreme Court had recognised that where a meritorious candidate approaches the Court promptly and is wrongly denied admission because of an authority’s fault, a court can, in exceptional circumstances, direct admission and even permit creation of a limited supernumerary seat.
The Delhi High Court relied on this principle to protect the petitioner’s academic year if no normal seat remained available.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner fell squarely within the class protected by Anushka Rengunthwar because his OCI status dated from 2019, well before 4 March 2021.
He had completed his entire education in India, had secured a strong JEE rank and was otherwise eligible on merit.
Yet JAC Delhi excluded him entirely, while also pointing him toward DASA, a process for which he was admittedly ineligible.
The Court found this legally untenable.
It further noted that candidates lower in merit than the petitioner had already secured admission to the very institution and course he sought.
The Court therefore concluded that the petitioner had been denied fair treatment because JAC Delhi failed to properly implement the Supreme Court judgment.
Relief and Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition.
A writ of mandamus was issued directing JAC to allot the petitioner a seat corresponding to his rank while treating him as a Resident Indian National, within two weeks.
The Court further held that because the petitioner was meritorious, had approached the Court promptly and was denied his rights due to the authority’s lapse, his academic career should not suffer.
If necessary, the Court permitted creation of a supernumerary seat for him in accordance with the exceptional-relief principles recognised in S. Krishna Sradha.
Contempt Petition
A connected contempt petition had been filed because an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 had already directed that the petitioner be permitted to participate in JAC counselling and be allotted a seat corresponding to his rank.
Despite that direction, he was not effectively allowed to participate, while lower-merit candidates obtained admission.
The Court observed that judicial orders must be complied with in true letter, spirit and intent, and that mere formal registration without genuine consideration could not amount to compliance.
However, since JAC was now given two weeks to comply with the final writ directions, the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to revive it if the order was not complied with.
Case Details
Case: Aarav Dhawan, Minor Through His Father and Natural Guardian v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Connected Matter: Aarav Dhawan v. Tarun Rawat, Chairman, Joint Admission Counselling
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Numbers: W.P.(C) 8114/2026 and CONT. CAS (C) 1212/2026
Judge: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Reserved On: 11 August 2026
Date: 25 August 2026
Petitioner’s JEE Rank: 12,617
OCI Card Date: 31 October 2019
Relief: JAC directed to treat petitioner as Resident Indian National and allot a seat corresponding to rank within two weeks; supernumerary seat permitted if necessary.
Result: Writ petition allowed; contempt petition disposed of with liberty to revive in case of non-compliance
