You are logged in
Loading…
You don’t have any Active Subscription.
Subscribed with another email? Logout and Login with that one.
Your active subscription(s)
Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription
Products you’ve access to
Additional Subscription Benefits
Account Settings
Need help with your subscription?
July 3, 2026e-Paper
The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.
First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.
Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.
Science For All The weekly newsletter from science writers takes the jargon out of science and puts the fun in!
Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers
THEdge At the cutting edge of education and careers
Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there
Gender Agenda Stories from beyond the binary.
The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.
July 3, 2026e-Paper
Published – July 04, 2026 04:17 am IST
A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia on July 1, 2026, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the organisation Justice for All. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Delhi High Court has refused to strike down a rule that allows private unaided professional colleges in Delhi to conduct admissions to their 10% management quota seats independently, holding that the system is consistent with the rule.
A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia on July 1, 2026, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the organisation ‘Justice for All’, which had challenged Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Professional Colleges Rules, 2007.
Advocate Khagesh B. Jha, appearing for the organisation, sought directions to ensure that all seats, including the 10% management quota seats (MQS), be filled through a common, centralised, transparent, online counselling process conducted by the designated agency under the supervision of the Admission Regulatory Committee (ARC).
The Court, however, held that the statutory scheme under the Delhi Professional Colleges Act clearly distinguishes management quota seats from the remaining 90% seats.
“If we examine the Scheme of the Act for admission, what we find is that Section 12 of the Act prescribes for allocation and reservation of seats and Section 12(a) of the Act provides that 10% of the total seats in an unaided institution shall be allocated as MQS,” the Court said.
On the submission of Mr. Jha that the private unaided institution conducts counselling simultaneously, which disallows a candidate to participate in the counselling for seeking admission to more than one such institutions, the court said such grievances “does not make Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Rules bad in law”.
“The scheme of the Act permits an institution to make admission against the MQS once the counselling by designated agency is over for making admissions against rest of the 90% seats,” the Court highlighted.
Published – July 04, 2026 04:17 am IST
Delhi
Copyright© 2026, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
BACK TO TOP
Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.
Leave a Reply