Independent institutions may conduct internal merit-based admissions for Management Quota seats from CET-qualified candidates.

The Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Rules, 2007

The Petitioner also challenged the 2026-27 Admission Brochure, specifically provisions allowing the de-reservation of seats and the conversion of "Delhi Quota" seats to "Outside Delhi Quota" during Management Quota Admissions

The Petitioner sought directions for a centralized, online counseling process for the 10% Management Quota Seats (MQS) and the implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) recommended by the Admission Regulatory Committee (ARC)

1. Whether Rule 8(2)(a)(v) of the 2007 Rules is ultra vires the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions Act, 2007, particularly Section 2(d), by allowing institutions to prepare their own merit lists for Management Quota Admissions

2. Whether the court should direct the State to mandate a common, centralized online counseling process for Management Quota Seats to ensure transparency and merit

Rule 8(2)(a)(v) specifies that institutions shall draw their own merit lists and conduct counseling for MQS

The Court primarily applied Section 12(a) of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions Act, 2007, which allocates 10% of seats as Management Quota Seats

It also interpreted Section 13, which mandates admissions through a Common Entrance Test (CET), and its proviso, which specifically empowers institutions to fill MQS via advertisement from CET-qualified candidates based on merit in the qualifying examination

Section 4(12) of the Act establishes the Admission Regulatory Committee (ARC) to regulate admission procedures and suggest guidelines for fair and transparent processes

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s contention that Rule 8(2)(a)(v) contradicts the Act. It reasoned that Section 13 of the Act distinguishes between the 90% general seats and the 10% MQS

While the general seats are filled via centralized counseling by a designated agency, the proviso to Section 13 explicitly grants institutions the right to fill MQS independently, provided the candidates have qualified the CET

The Court observed that requiring centralized counseling for MQS would render the proviso to Section 13 redundant

Regarding the lack of transparency or procedural discrepancies in MQS admissions, the Court noted that the ARC is the statutory body empowered under Section 4(12) to regulate such procedures and suggest improvements to the government

The Petition was disposed of without granting the primary prayers for online centralized counseling. However, the Court granted the Petitioner liberty to file an exhaustive representation regarding procedural discrepancies (such as online counseling needs and de-reservation issues) before the Admission Regulatory Committee (ARC) within a fortnight. The ARC was directed to consider such representation and take appropriate measures with expedition