NEET-UG: Delhi High Court Questions Requirement For NRI Sponsor To Prove They 'Looked After' Student As Guardian

The Delhi High Court has questioned the requirement for an NRI sponsor to establish that they had actually looked after a student as his or her guardian for the purpose of NRI quota admission following the NEET-UG examination.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that the requirement “appears to introduce a subjective criterion,” which may vary from case to case.

The Court made the observation while directing the authorities to permit a NEET-UG 2026 candidate to participate in the ongoing NRI quota counselling, subject to him furnishing an affidavit from his proposed NRI sponsor along with sufficient documentary material demonstrating the sponsor's financial capacity.

It observed that the legitimate concern of the authorities in permitting admissions under the NRI quota should, prima facie, be confined to ensuring that such admissions are not secured on the basis of bogus or manufactured documents.

However, the Court noted that requiring a proposed sponsor to produce evidence that they had actually looked after the student as a guardian appeared subjective.

“[The requirement] appears to introduce a subjective criterion, the satisfaction of which may vary from case to case,” the Court observed.

It further held that, at the interim stage, an affidavit by the proposed sponsor accompanied by sufficient documentary material establishing their financial capacity to bear the student's educational expenses would adequately address the authorities' legitimate concerns.

The candidate had appeared for NEET-UG 2026, securing the requisite cut-off marks. His maternal uncle, who resided outside India, had undertaken to bear his expenses relating to his coaching, NEET-UG examination and MBBS course.

The candidate challenged a notice issued by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) in May introducing additional requirements for persons claiming to be NRI sponsors or nearest relatives.

Under the notice, the sponsor is required, among other things, to be an NRI ordinarily residing abroad and to have looked after the student as his or her guardian, with evidence to that effect being produced before the Committee and supported by an affidavit.

The candidate contended that the said requirements prevented him from participating in the NRI quota counselling, particularly as obtaining a formal guardianship order was a time-consuming process.

The Union of India opposed the interim relief, submitting that the requirement was intended as a safeguard against bogus and manufactured claims. It was also argued that intervention at that stage could disturb the ongoing counselling schedule.

The Court, however, found that the petitioner candidate had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in his favour.

It  noted that the student had secured the requisite marks in NEET-UG 2026 and that if he was denied participation in the ongoing counselling and was ultimately found entitled to admission under the NRI quota, the lost opportunity might not be capable of adequate monetary compensation, resulting in irreparable loss and injury.

“Accordingly, subject to the petitioner furnishing an affidavit of the proposed sponsor, along with sufficient documentary proof demonstrating his financial capacity to bear the educational expenses of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the ongoing counselling process under the NRI quota,” the Court said.

It clarified that the participation would remain subject to the final outcome of the petition.

Title: ANISH SANDEEP PATIL (MINOR) THROUGH HIS FATHER SANDEEP HEMANT PATIL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Click here to read order