Back
MCC's NRI Sponsor Requirement Subjective, Can't Bar NEET-UG Counselling:
The has stepped in to allow a NEET-UG 2026 candidate to participate in ongoing counselling, questioning the Medical Counselling Committee's (MCC) requirement that an NRI sponsor prove they "looked after" the student as a guardian. Justice Jasmeet Singh, in an on , held that the condition introduced a "" and that an with financial proof would suffice to address concerns over .
A Subjective Hurdle: Court Questions MCC's New Norm
The petitioner, Anish Sandeep Patil, a minor represented by his father, secured the requisite marks in NEET-UG 2026. His maternal uncle, Shailesh Ashokrao Patil, an NRI, undertook to bear all educational and coaching expenses. However, a
notice from the MCC required NRI sponsors to produce evidence of having
"looked after the student as his/her guardian"
and to obtain
under the
.
The petitioner argued that obtaining such a guardianship order was time-consuming and that the sudden change, introduced just before counselling, prevented his participation in the . The second round of counselling was underway from .
The Dispute: NRI Sponsor vs. Guardianship Evidence
The opposed , submitting that the requirement was a safeguard against manufactured claims. It argued that the guardian must have actually looked after the student, supported by evidence, and that any court intervention could disturb the ongoing counselling schedule.
The court, however, observed that the MCC's legitimate concern should be limited to preventing bogus admissions, not imposing subjective tests.
"The requirement of establishing that the sponsor had, in fact, looked after the student as his guardian, however, appears to introduce a
, the satisfaction of which may vary from case to case,"
Justice Singh noted.
Arguments: Balancing Genuine Need Against
The court accepted that since , admissions had been permitted on the basis of an , as per the 's order in Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka v. (). The impugned notice added new layers: the sponsor must be a nearest relative, an NRI ordinarily residing abroad, and must have "looked after" the student with evidence.
The petitioner's maternal uncle, a real maternal uncle, fell within the definition of nearest relation. Yet he could not satisfy the "looked after" evidence requirement. The court found this to be a at the interim stage.
Court's : and Financial Proof Sufficient
Justice Singh directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the ongoing counselling, subject to furnishing an from the sponsor along with sufficient documentary proof of financial capacity. The order clarified that participation would remain subject to the final outcome of the petition.
"An
furnished by the proposed sponsor, accompanied by sufficient documentary material demonstrating the sponsor's financial capacity to bear the educational expenses of the petitioner, would adequately address the legitimate concern of the respondents at this stage,"
the court held.
Why Irreparable Harm Tilts Balance
The court emphasized that the petitioner had secured the necessary marks and that denying him participation could cause .
"If he is not permitted to participate in the ongoing counselling process and is ultimately found entitled to admission under the
, the opportunity lost in the intervening period may not be capable of being adequately compensated in monetary terms,"
the order stated.
What Happens Next
The court directed the respondents to file a detailed counter- before the next hearing on . The ensures the petitioner can proceed with counselling while the larger question of the validity of the MCC's new requirements remains pending. The ruling may influence other similarly placed candidates facing hurdles under the revised norms.
