Right To Education Doesn't Mean Right To Secure Seat In Course Of Choice Without Meeting Eligibility Criteria: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not extend to a right to secure admission in a programme of one's choice without satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while upholding the University of Delhi's subject-mapping criteria for undergraduate admissions through CUET-UG 2025.
“The right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution does not extend to a right to be given a seat in a programme of one's choice without satisfying the eligibility conditions,” the Court observed.
It dismissed a petition challenging Clause 5 of Delhi University's Bulletin of Information 2025, which mandates candidates to appear in CUET-UG in those subjects in which they are appearing or have passed Class XII.
The petitioner, Suvan Yaduvanshi, had sought admission to the BA (Hons.) History programme at Shivaji College for the academic year 2025-26. Although he was provisionally allotted a seat under the Armed Forces category, his admission was subsequently rejected for non-fulfilment of the subject-mapping criteria.
He argued that the condition was arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the National Education Policy 2020. He also contended that he had secured a seat on the basis of merit in CUET-UG.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the subject-mapping criteria had a rational nexus with the objective of ensuring that students admitted to a programme had studied foundational subjects at the Class XII level and had been tested in those subjects.
The Court observed that the condition applied uniformly to all candidates and had been published before the commencement of the admission process.
It further held that the power to prescribe eligibility conditions is inherent in a university's power to admit students, and that any hardship caused to an individual candidate would not render the criterion arbitrary.
The Court also rejected the petitioner's contention that securing a seat on merit entitled him to admission, observing that merit in CUET determines the ranking of eligible candidates and does not substitute for eligibility.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.