Delhi High Court: In a writ petition where the petitioner, an aspirant for the JEE, approached the Court challenging his ineligibility to appear in JEE Advanced Exam 2026 arising from Rule 28, Clauses 77 and 78, Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) Business Rules, 2025 (JoSAA Business Rules) read with Criterion A5, JEE Advanced 2026 Information Brochure, the Single-Juge 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 Main 2025, qualified, and thereafter appeared in JEE Advanced 2025. He was initially allotted a seat at IIT (ISM) Dhanbad, and subsequently, in the second round of counselling, allotted Engineering Physics at IIT Guwahati.
He paid the seat acceptance fee, completed document verification, and continued in the counselling process. During counselling, he exercised options such as “float” and later “slide”, seeking a better branch within the same institute.
On 27 June 2025, the petitioner emailed IIT Guwahati seeking clarification regarding the branch change process from Engineering Physics to Electronics and Communication. Receiving no response, and being unwilling to continue in the allotted branch, he sent another email dated 19 July 2025, communicating his decision not to join the course.
It was to be noted that the petitioner never physically reported at IIT Guwahati for final admission. The seat allotment instructions themselves indicated that final confirmation was subject to production of original documents and physical verification at the admitting institute, which admittedly never occurred.
For JEE Advanced 2026, the organizing institute, IIT Roorkee, informed the petitioner on 21 March 2026 that he was ineligible under Criterion A5 of the Information Brochure, read with the JoSAA Business Rules.
Issue for Determination
-
Whether the petitioner, having accepted a seat and reported online but not physically reporting, falls within the disqualification under Criterion A5 and JoSAA Rules?
-
Whether, in such circumstances, the Court should grant interim permission to register and appear in JEE Advanced 2026?
Observation
The Court noted that the petitioner had raised a prima facie case requiring consideration. It clarified that the question as to whether non-reporting physically would exclude him from disqualification required final adjudication after pleadings are complete and the present stage what needs to be decided was whether the petitioner should be permitted to sit for the examination
The Court opined that if the petitioner is not permitted to appear, the writ petition would become infructuous, as he is entitled only to two attempts, one of which had already been exhausted. The Court also balanced equities, noting that if ultimately the petitioner fails, his result can always be declared null and void.
The Court emphasised on aspirational value of IIT education and the importance of opportunity in such examinations, and state that “this is the most premium institution in the world. Kids have ambition since class 1 to enter into IIT, so I cannot be oblivious to it… This is your Human resource.”
The Court asserted that its prima facie view that petitioner should be allowed to appear in examination was not based on ill-conceived sympathy but for the reason as discussed above.
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, , decided on 28-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Tanvi Dubey, AOR, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Arun Mitra Adv., Counsel for the Respondent/State