Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner, an aspirant for the JEE, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner eligible for JEE (Advanced) 2026, to set aside the impugned rules and regulations treating him as ineligible on account of deemed acceptance of a seat, and to permit him to register, participate, and be issued an admit card for JEE (Advanced) 2026, including all consequential counselling processes, the Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to register for JEE Advanced Exam 2026, holding that the petitioner had a prima facie case, the balance of convenience lies in his favour, and irreparable prejudice would be caused if relief was denied.
Also Read: UGC Declares Rajeev Gandhi Institute of Technology & Management’s Degrees Invalid
Factual Matrix
The petitioner, a 17-year-old candidate, had appeared in JEE (Mains) 2025 and became eligible for JEE (Advanced) 2025, which he subsequently cleared. During the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) 2025 counselling process, he registered, paid the seat acceptance fee of Rs 15,000, and completed document verification.
Initially, he exercised the float option and was allotted a seat at IIT (ISM), Dhanbad. After multiple counselling rounds, in the 5th round he was given an option to freeze or withdraw; however, acting in good faith and anticipating a better option, he did not withdraw. In the 6th round, he was allotted a seat at IIT Guwahati in Engineering Physics, but no option to freeze or withdraw was available, and the seat stood automatically deemed accepted.
On 27 June 2025, the petitioner sought clarification from IIT Guwahati regarding the possibility of branch change from Engineering Physics to Electronics and Communication Engineering but received no response. Subsequently, on 16 July 2025, his seat stood locked. Thereafter, by email dated 19 July 2025, he communicated his decision not to join the course.
Later, on 12 October 2025, he sought clarification from JoSAA and IIT Kanpur regarding his eligibility for JEE (Advanced) 2026. Since IIT Roorkee was the organising institute for 2026, he addressed representations to it as well. IIT Roorkee, by email dated 21 March 2026, informed him that Criterion A5 rendered him ineligible.
Issue for Determination
Whether the petitioner, by not physically reporting to IIT Guwahati despite online acceptance, fell within the exemptions under Criterion A5, and consequently, whether he could be permitted to appear in JEE (Advanced) 2026?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court observed that the issue would be finally decided after the respondent’s counter-affidavit. However, if interim relief were denied, the petition would become infructuous since the examination was scheduled for 17 May 2026. The petitioner had only two permissible attempts, one of which had already been exhausted in 2025.
The Court noted that Criterion A5 of the JEE (Advanced) 2026 Information Brochure provides that a candidate who has been admitted to an IIT or has accepted an IIT seat by reporting online or otherwise is not eligible to appear again. It further clarifies that candidates who withdrew before the last round, did not report, or had their seat cancelled before the last round may still be eligible, subject to other conditions.
The Court examined the Initial Seat Allotment Intimation Slip dated 16 July 2025 and noted that the slip expressly stated that final confirmation of admission was subject to production of valid original documents and their physical verification at the admitting institute. It was further noted that although the petitioner had reported online, physical verification of original documents had not taken place. Consequently, the Court held that final confirmation of admission was conditional and had not been completed in the present case.
The Court opined that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience lay in his favour and denial of permission would cause irreparable loss, as the examination could not be conducted again and the petitioner would lose his final opportunity. It was further observed that if ultimately the petition failed, the petitioner’s examination could be declared null and void.
The Court noted that the respondent heavily relied on CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719, wherein the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of allowing students to appear in examinations under interim orders contrary to statutory rules and emphasised that misplaced sympathy cannot override legal requirements and that such orders disrupt academic discipline and standards.
While expressing the “highest regard” for the judgment in Sheena Peethambaran (supra), the Court clarified that the present view was not based on ill-conceived sympathy but on the specific factual matrix, particularly the conditional nature of admission and absence of final confirmation.
Decision
The Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner a ticket, to appear for proposed JEE Advanced 2026 examination which was to be held on 17 May 2026, within 1 week from the date of the order. It listed the petition for final disposal on 25 May 2026 at 2.30 p.m.
[Shreyansh Jarwal v. Joint Seat Allocation Authority, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2133, decided on 28-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. and Mr. Yash Dubey, Adv, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Arjun Mitra Adv., Counsel for the Respondent/State
