NRI Uncle’s Promise To Fund NEET-PG Aspirant Not Enough For Quota Without Proof Of Past Support, Madras HC Holds

The petitioner, who obtained an All India Rank of 109233 in NEET PG 2026, sought counselling under the NRI quota on the basis that her paternal uncle, an OCI residing in the United States, would sponsor her education. Her application was rejected for failure to provide evidence that the proposed sponsor had been taking care of her. She challenged Clauses 3(d) and (e) of a notification dated 27 May 2026 and sought permission to participate in counselling on the basis of an affidavit from her uncle.

The respondents submitted that the challenged notification concerned UG counselling; the petitioner’s eligibility was governed by the NEET PG 2026 Information Bulletin.

The NEET PG 2026 Information Bulletin requires an Indian candidate claiming eligibility under the NRI quota to provide an affidavit from the claimed guardian, together with supporting documentary evidence that the sponsor has genuinely taken care of and supported the candidate for the requisite period.

The affidavit alone does not establish eligibility where supporting evidence is inadequate or absent; the evidence is subject to verification by the competent authority.

The Bulletin’s requirement is based on the Division Bench decision in Anshul Tomar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 2 MPLJ 450.

The Bulletin does not require a court order under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for adult candidates claiming conversion to the NRI category.

The Court held that the challenged notification formed part of the NEET UG counselling scheme and did not govern the petitioner’s application for a postgraduate seat; her claim had to be assessed under the NEET PG 2026 Bulletin.

The petitioner had produced no evidence that her uncle had previously cared for or supported her.

His relationship to her and willingness to meet future educational expenses could not substitute for the Bulletin’s separate requirement of evidence of actual care and support.

The Court distinguished the absence of a guardianship order—which was not required—from the absence of supporting evidence, which was required.

Interim orders in other cases did not finally determine the issue or displace the governing PG requirements.

It also declined to quash Clauses 3(d) and (e) of the 27 May 2026 notification.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.