Student Reaches Delhi High Court After JMI Denies Admission

A student has approached the Delhi High Court alleging that Jamia Millia Islamia has denied him admission despite the selection through the admission process for the 2025–26 academic session.

The petitioner, Salman Saleem, has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging Jamia’s decision to refuse him admission to the PhD programme at the Anwar Jamal Kidwai–Mass Communication Research Centre (AJK-MCRC) under the UGC-NET exempted category.

According to the petition, Saleem had qualified for UGC-NET (June 2024) and applied for the PhD programme pursuant to Jamia’s admission notification dated October 16, 2025.

He was issued an admit card, appeared for the interview, had his documents verified at multiple stages, and was subsequently declared selected in the final admission list published on December 19, 2025.

Read also: JMI Violates Muslim Reservation In PhD Admission 2024-25: Student Body

However, when Saleem reported to complete admission formalities between December 23 and 30, he was allegedly informed that he would not be granted admission, with university officials citing the purported expiry of his UGC-NET qualification.

The petitioner has contended that no written order or formal communication explaining the rejection was ever issued.

The petition argues that neither Jamia’s PhD Ordinance nor the UGC Regulations prescribe a cut-off date requiring the NET qualification to remain valid on the date of admission, and that Saleem’s eligibility was verified when the admission notification was issued.

It further claims that Jamia’s delay in completing the admission process cannot be used to penalise a candidate who was otherwise found eligible and selected.

Advocate Syed Kaif Hasan, Saleem’s counsel in the case, speaking to Maktoob, said, “The present writ petition arises out of an arbitrary, belated and legally unsustainable denial of admission to the petitioner to the PhD programme.”

Highlighting institutional inaction that, according to him, amounts to illegality, he said, “The petitioner’s representations seeking review of eligibility and admission have not been decided till date, resulting in denial of admission by inaction, which is as illegal and arbitrary as an express adverse decision.”

He further said, “The petitioner’s research proposal was duly accepted, a supervisor was assigned, and the academic relationship between the petitioner and the respondent institution had already crystallised.”

Violation of Reservation Norms

The petition also alleged violations of reservation norms, stating that seats were not disclosed or allocated category-wise as mandated under Jamia’s Ordinance 6 (VI), thereby undermining transparency in the admission process.

The counsel, Hasan, on reservation policy violations said, “The Institutions have failed to strictly and religiously follow the reservation policy as mandated under Ordinance 6 (VI).”

Calling the admission denial “arbitrary and unconstitutional,” the petition claims violations of Articles 14, 21, 29 and 30 of the Constitution, arguing that the decision infringes upon his right to equality, education, and legitimate academic expectation after being formally selected and assigned a research supervisor.

The counsel maintained, “The impugned action is ex facie arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, and unsustainable in law, warranting immediate interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

He added, “The petitioner cannot be denied admission on grounds arising solely out of administrative delay attributable to the respondent university.”

“We seek quashing of the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent university denying admission after having provisionally selected and declared him successful in the final selection list,” Adv. Hasan told Maktoob.

The matter is expected to be taken up by the Delhi High Court in the coming days.