The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions Rules, 2007, holding that private unaided professional institutions are empowered to prepare a separate merit list and conduct admissions for 10% Management Quota Seats (MQS) from amongst candidates who have qualified the Common Entrance Test (CET). [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 614]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the Rule is in consonance with the scheme of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions Act, 2007 and does not violate its provisions.

The order was passed while dealing with a public interest litigation filed by Justice For All, which had challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(a)(v) as well as the Admission Brochure for the academic session 2026-27.

Petitioner contended that the Rule was contrary to Section 2(d) of the Act defining the Common Entrance Test (CET), arguing that the CET necessarily included centralized counselling.

It was submitted that permitting private institutions to prepare their own merit list for management quota admissions defeated the statutory scheme and compromised transparency.

Rejecting the challenge, the High Court examined Sections 12 and 13 of the Act and observed that while 90% of seats are filled through centralized counselling conducted by the designated agency, the proviso to Section 13 specifically provides that management quota seats are to be filled by the institutions themselves through advertisement from among candidates who have qualified the CET.

"As per the scheme embodied in Section 12 of the Act read with Section 13 of the Act... for the purposes of making admissions against the MQS, an institution is required to make advertisement and, thereafter, make admissions from amongst the candidates, who have qualified the CET. That... would not include any qualification in the counselling as well," the Court said.

Addressing the Petitioner's contention that simultaneous counselling conducted by private institutions deprived candidates of an opportunity to participate in admissions across multiple colleges, the Court held that such a grievance did not render the Rule bad in law.

“If the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is acceded to, the same will amount to all the seats including the MQS being filled in from amongst the candidates who have qualified the CET and are subjected to counselling by the designated agency. That submission, if accepted, will make the provisions contained in proviso to Section 13 of the Act redundant,” it said.

However, the Court noted that grievances regarding the manner in which private institutions conduct management quota admissions could appropriately be examined by the Admission Regulatory Committee (ARC), which is statutorily empowered to regulate admission procedures and recommend measures to ensure fairness, transparency and merit-based admissions.

Accordingly, while declining to interfere with the Rule, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the ARC within two weeks.

Appearance: Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Adv. for Petitioner; Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv. for R-3.

Case title: Justice For All v. LG

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 614

Case no.: W.P.(C) 8439/2026

Click here to read order