Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Aariv Marwah vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4248 Bom

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4248 Bom
Judgement Date : 27 June, 2025

Bombay High Court

Aariv Marwah vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary, ... on 27 June, 2025

Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik, N.R.Borkar
 2025:BHC-OS:9803-DB


                             Ingale                                                             504-wpl-17486-25.odt



                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         Digitally signed
URMILA
PRAMOD
         by URMILA
         PRAMOD
         INGALE
                                          ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
         Date:
INGALE   2025.07.01
         19:24:53 +0530



                                              WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17486 OF 2025

                            Aariv Marwah                                     ... Petitioner
                                  Versus
                            Union of India and ors.                          .... Respondents

                                                          ****
                            Mr.Mehul Shah i/b Mr.Daljeet Singh Bhatia, for the Petitioner.
                            Mr. Arjun Mitra (through V.C.) i/b Mr. Arsh Misra, for the
                            Respondents No. 2 & 3.
                                                                 ****

                                                            CORAM :   M.S.KARNIK AND
                                                                      N.R.BORKAR, JJ.

                                                             DATE :   27th JUNE, 2025

                            ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J.) :

1. Not on board. Taken on production board.

2. The petitioner by this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs.

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, to quash and set-aside Rule 24 under Clause X of the JoSAA Business Rules 2025 as unconstitutional, discriminatory, and arbitrary;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 2 (JoSAA) and Respondent No. 3 (JAB) to allocate seats to Petitioner, without requiring their ranks to match or exceed the OPEN Gender- Neutral closing rank;

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 2 (JoSAA) and Respondent No. 3 (JAB) to prepare and publish

Ingale 504-wpl-17486-25.odt

independent list of foreign nationals for admission in IITs based on their CRL ranks and allocate seat to Petitioner."

3. The petitioner is a British national who appeared for the Joint

Entrance Examination (JEE) Advanced 2025 under Foreign Tag

Category and secured a rank in the Common Rank List (CRL). The

admission to undergraduate programs in IITs is through the JEE, a

highly competitive two-tier exam process comprising JEE Main and

JEE Advanced. On 30/09/2024 UGC addressed a letter to all the

Universities to implement the guidelines for Internationalization of

Higher Education in India dated 29th July 2021 and to create

supernumerary seats for international students. IIT Kanpur

published the JEE Advanced Information Brochure dated

21/12/2024 containing details of eligibility, exam pattern,

syllabus, application process, schedule and other key information.

The seats for these Defence Service (DS) candidates, Female

Candidates and Foreign Nationals and OCI (F)/PIO is created on

the basis of supernumerary seats. JEE Advanced exam was held

on 18/05/2025.

4. Respondent No.2 - Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA)

issued JoSAA Business Rules 2025 (Impugned Rules) on

Ingale 504-wpl-17486-25.odt

27/05/2025. Learned counsel submitted that as per Rule 24 under

Clause X of the Impugned Rules, the Foreign Tag candidate will be

allotted seat in an academic program if the candidate's CRL rank is

same or better than the closing rank of the said program in the

open category. According to learned counsel, this imposes

restrictive conditions only for Foreign Tag candidates and not for

other categories such as Female Category and Defence Service

category, which is discriminatory.

5. The petitioner addressed an email on 03/06/2025 to the

Grievance Committee of Respondent No.3 to reconsider Rule 24

under Clause X. The last date for registration for the JoSAA

Counselling was on 12/06/2025. The Petitioner completed the

registration for counselling under protest and subject to the

outcome of his grievance.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 24

violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India by denying the

petitioner access to quality education at the Indian Institutes of

Technology (IITs) which has been recognised as a fundamental

right under Article 21 read with Article 14. Learned counsel

Ingale 504-wpl-17486-25.odt

further submitted that JOSAA Business Rules 2025 are introduced

after the examinations are held and hence it was not permissible

for the respondents to have changed the Rules once the

examination process has already begun and after information

brochure is published, on the basis of which the petitioner

appeared for the examination. It is further submitted that as a

result of such a condition which was not part of the information

brochure, there are several supernumerary seats which will go

vacant and this by itself will deprive the otherwise meritorious

foreign candidates from education which is discriminatory and

irrational. It is further submitted that the condition as provided by

Rule 24 of Clause X is completely discriminatory, as it treats

foreign national candidates unequally compared to reserved quota

categories like Defence Service and Female Category candidates

with similar or lower CRL ranks.

7. Learned counsel at pains to bring to our notice various

provisions of the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 to submit that

examination can be conducted only in accordance with Rules

framed in the statute. He contends that JoSAA virtually decides

everything, so far as the admission process in IIT is concerned.

Ingale 504-wpl-17486-25.odt

This amounts to giving a complete go-by to the statutory

provisions. Learned counsel in order to submit that such a

delegation is not permissible relied on the decision 1A.K. Roy and

anr. Vs. State of Punjab and ors. in support of his submissions.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first

question for our consideration is whether the Rules are introduced

after the examination was conducted and whether prescription of

such a condition was justified or not.

9. We have gone through the affidavit in reply filed by

respondents no. 2 and 3. It is pertinent to note clause 27 of the

information brochure which reads thus :

"27. Joint Seat Allocation The seats across IITs, NITs, IIITs and other Government Funded Technical Institutes (GFTIs) will be offered and allocated through a common process by the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA), to be held in online mode for current year.

The candidates who secured a Rank in JEE (Advanced) 2025 are eligible to participate in Joint Seat Allocation process for a seat at an IIT.

All the candidates who are eligible for admission will have to participate in the joint seat allocation process by filling in their preferential choices of the courses and Institutes. The detailed instructions for filling-in the choices and the seat allotment procedure will be made available by JoSAA 2025 through JoSAA Business Rules of 2025.

The schedule of the joint seat allocation will be announced separately by JoSAA 2025.



1    (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 326





  Ingale                                                               504-wpl-17486-25.odt



The list of courses that will be offered by the IIT'S for admission for the academic year 2025-26 will be made available at the time of online filling-in of choices."

10. It is thus seen from the various provisions of the JoSAA

Business Rules 2025 brochure that detailed instructions for Joint

Seat Allocation procedure was to be made available by JoSAA

Business Rules 2025. Further it has been mentioned that schedule

of Joint Seat Allocation would be in accordance with JoSAA 2025.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent has specifically referred

to the frequently asked questions contained in JEE (Advanced)

2025 website which was published much prior to February 2025.

The website was in public domain. Even as on February 2025, one

of the participants had asked a specific question as to how are

foreign supernumerary seats allotted in IITs during JoSAA. We

find that the respondents had informed participants that a seat in

an academic program will be allotted to a foreign candidate or an

OCI/PIO (F) candidate if the candidate's CRL rank is the same or

better than the closing rank of the GEN category candidate, in that

academic program, and the candidate satisfies all the eligibility

requirements meant for a GEN category candidate. It is further

Ingale 504-wpl-17486-25.odt

specified that such seats allocated to foreign candidates will be

supernumerary and is limited to up to 10% of the total number of

seats of the respective IIT, program-wise. It is specifically

mentioned that more details would be provided in JoSAA Business

Rules 2025, as and when it is published.

12. It is material to note that the information brochure clearly

provided that admission to various undergraduate programs across

IITs is carried out through the Joint Entrance Examination

(Advanced) [JEE (Advanced)]. The Joint Entrance Examination

(Advanced) 2025 [JEE (Advanced) 2025] and the subsequent

process of admission to the IITs shall be governed by the rules

contained in this document, read in conjunction with the Business

Rules of the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) 2025 (to be

published separately).

13. The petitioner participated in the admission process. The

petitioner did not challenge the information brochure. The

condition which is part of Rule 24 of the challenge was in public

domain much prior to the examination and therefore at this stage,

having participated in the examination, it is not open for the

Ingale 504-wpl-17486-25.odt

petitioner to raise the challenge to the impugned Rules. In any

case, we find from the material on record that such a condition

was existing much prior to the examination. It is significant to

mention that in paragraph 12 of the affidavit in reply, it is clearly

stated that for the foreign national candidates, the requirement for

being considered for seat allocation is that they must be qualified

in JEE (Advanced) and must match the rank obtained by the last

admitted candidate in the Open Gender Neutral category, is not

new and it has been in place for more than 10 years in

substantially the same form.

14. In this view of the matter, we do not find it necessary to

examine the larger challenge raised by the petitioner as to whether

admission process is inconformity with the Institutes of Technology

Act, 1961 in this petition.

15. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition.

The petition is dismissed.

(N.R.BORKAR, J.)                                  (M.S.KARNIK, J.)







 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter