Right to Education Does Not Guarantee Seat in Course of Choice Without Meeting Eligibility Criteria: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld the subject-mapping condition in the University of Delhi’s Bulletin of Information 2025, which requires candidates to appear in CUET (UG) 2025 in the subjects they studied in Class XII, and has dismissed the challenge of a student whose seat in B.A. (Hons) History at Shivaji College was rejected for not meeting it. 

Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the clause is not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, in a judgment reserved on 31 July 2026 and pronounced on 3 November 2026.

The petitioner, Suvan Yaduvanshi, passed Class XII from CBSE in 2021 and applied for CUET 2025 in English, Geography/Geology, History and Political Science, which differed from his Class XII subjects. He was allotted B.A. (Hons) History at Shivaji College on 15.08.2025 on the basis of his CUET marks, but on 17.08.2025 the seat was rejected for “non-fulfilment of the subject mapping criteria”. He sought to quash the rejection and Clause 5 of the Bulletin, and a direction to allot him the seat for 2025-26.

The petitioner argued that the rejection fails the triple test of fairness, transparency and non-exploitation laid down in P.A. Inamdar and T.M.A. Pai Foundation, contravenes the National Education Policy, 2020, and ignores merit, as he secured the seat on inter-se merit. He also argued that the clause has no statutory backing, and that DU does not apply subject mapping for B.A. LL.B. through CLAT, which treats similar students differently. He relied on a UGC public notice of 11.12.2024, which spoke of a draft proposal allowing candidates to take any CUET subjects.

DU argued that the Bulletin, released on 07.03.2025, clearly stated the requirement in Clause 5, and that the CUET Information Bulletin itself advised candidates to read the university’s prospectus before choosing subjects. It said that the petitioner had declared in the CSAS admission form that he had done the correct Class XII subject mapping, that this declaration was incorrect, and that the petition was filed after the admission process had ended.

The Court noted that the academic year 2025-26 is over and 2026-27 is underway, so the petition had become infructuous, but decided it as it raised an important issue. It first recalled that, in educational and academic matters, courts keep their hands off unless there is a clear violation of a statutory provision, regulation or notification, relying on Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Neha Anil Bobde.

The Court held that Clause 5 is an eligibility condition with a rational nexus to its object, namely that candidates admitted to a programme should have studied and been tested in foundational subjects at the Class XII level, and that it applies equally to all candidates, was published before the admission process began and is not shown to be capricious. It said that whether a different criterion would be better is a matter for the university and its experts.

The Court held that the UGC notice and draft proposal were merely a draft and do not bind DU or override the eligibility criteria in its Bulletin. The petitioner, it noted, had not shown any binding UGC regulation that prohibits a university from prescribing subject mapping, and the NTA’s own bulletin directed candidates to the university’s prospectus. The power to prescribe eligibility conditions, it held, is inherent in a university’s power to admit students, and NEP 2020 is a statement of policy that creates no enforceable right to admission. It added that “Any hardship to an individual candidate does not render the criterion arbitrary.”

Relying on Hrithik Rana v. Delhi University Sports Council and Sonam Rawal v. University of Delhi, the Court held that a university’s bulletin binds the candidate, and that a candidate who knew the criteria and participated without demur cannot challenge them after an unsuccessful outcome. It noted that, in G Jahnav Prem Sai v. University of Delhi, a similar challenge to Clause 5 was dismissed because the petitioner had given a declaration of compliance.

On merit, the Court held that CUET marks only rank eligible candidates and do not substitute for eligibility. P.A. Inamdar and T.M.A. Pai concern private unaided professional institutions and capitation fees, and so do not apply to a central university’s published criterion. It distinguished University of Delhi v. Ravindra Bishnoi, which concerned the “closely related subject” exception, since the petitioner did not plead such an exception and had given an incorrect declaration. It also held that B.A. LL.B. is a professional degree with a different admission mechanism, so the two are not similarly placed.

On the rejection order, the Court held that the provisional allotment of 15.08.2025 was subject to verification of eligibility and created no vested right, relying on Pragya Chaudhary v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. It also held that the right to education under Article 21 does not include a right to a seat in a programme of one’s choice without satisfying the eligibility conditions. Finding no ground to interfere with the rejection order or Clause 5, it dismissed the petition along with pending applications.

Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Velan, Mrs. Navpreet Kaur, Mr. Prince Singh, Mr. Nilay Rai, Mr. Rashiq Mukilan, Ms. Vanya Sharma, Mr. Yashvardhan Chauhan and Ms. Anoopa Tiwari, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Ms. Tripta Sharma, Advocates, and Mr. Shankar Kumar Jha, SPC, for the Union of India.

Case Title: Suvan Yaduvanshi v. University of Delhi and Others, W.P. (C) 13167/2025

[Read Judgment]