The Guardians And Wards Act Applies Only To Minors: Delhi High Court Stays An MCC Requirement Of A Guardianship Certificate For An Adult NEET NRI-Quota Candidate
An 18-year-old who cleared NEET wanted an NRI-quota seat, sponsored by her NRI maternal uncle, the relative who had supported her since she lost her father. The counselling portal rejected her documents, demanding a court order under the Guardians and Wards Act to prove the uncle was her legal guardian. But that Act, the Delhi High Court noted, is about the guardianship of minors, and she is an adult. Prima facie, the Court held, an adult candidate need not produce such a certificate at all, and it stayed the requirement in her case, letting her upload her documents and take part in counselling while the matter is heard.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to a NEET-UG 2026 candidate seeking admission under the NRI quota, staying in her case a Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) requirement that she produce documentary proof of guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, on the prima facie view that the Act applies only to minors and not to a candidate who has crossed the age of 18 [Ashwika Singhal v. Union of India and Others].
Justice Jasmeet Singh issued notice on the petition and the interim application, and stayed the applicability of the impugned requirement qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing.
What the case is about
The petitioner qualified NEET-UG 2026 and sought admission to medical (allied) courses under the 15% NRI quota, sponsored by her maternal uncle, her nearest relative, an Overseas Citizen of India settled in Australia, who, according to the petition, has largely supported her since she lost her father in 2023. She uploaded the documents to show that her uncle had treated her as his ward and had a genuine interest in her affairs, said to be in line with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka v. Union of India.
The online portal, however, rejected her documents on the ground that she had not uploaded a court order showing that her sponsor is her legal guardian. She challenged an MCC notification of May 2026 which required NRI-quota candidates to demonstrate, by evidential proof or a legal document, that the sponsor is a bona fide legal guardian of the candidate under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and sought to be allowed to participate in Round 3 of the counselling.
Guardianship, and who is a ‘ward’
The Court examined the scheme of the Guardians and Wards Act. Under Section 4, a ‘guardian’ means a person having the care of the person or property of a minor, and a ‘ward’ means a minor for whose person or property there is a guardian; and Section 8 lists those who may apply for an order appointing a guardian, in each case of a minor. A perusal of these provisions, the Court held, shows that the Act is applicable only to minor children and to persons taking care of minors, and prima facie does not seem to apply to persons aged 18 and above.
The petitioner’s date of birth, the Court noted, is stated to be December 21, 2007, so that she has already crossed 18. On that footing, the Court held, the impugned portion of the MCC circular prima facie appears to be inapplicable to her, as an adult who does not need to obtain the certificate required under the Guardians and Wards Act.
The interim order
For those reasons, the Court stayed, until the next date of hearing, the applicability of the impugned paragraph of the MCC notification qua the petitioner, and directed that she be permitted to upload her documents forthwith, or, if that was not possible online, to hand them over physically. It issued notice on the petition and the interim application, and, the Central Government Standing Counsel having sought time to obtain instructions, listed the matter for October 12, 2026.
Why it matters
For NEET aspirants applying under the NRI quota, the order addresses a practical snag that can derail an admission at the counselling stage. The NRI quota allows a candidate sponsored by an NRI relative to compete for a set of seats, and the authorities are entitled to verify that the sponsor genuinely stands in a guardian-like relationship to the candidate, precisely to prevent misuse of the quota. The question the case raises is what proof can fairly be demanded: the Court’s prima facie view is that a formal guardianship order under the Guardians and Wards Act, an Act concerned with minors, cannot be insisted upon from a candidate who is already an adult, for whom no such guardianship exists or is needed in law.
The distinction the Court drew is a simple but important one. Guardianship in the legal sense attaches to minors; on turning 18, a person is their own guardian, and there is no one for a court to appoint as guardian over them. To require an adult NRI-quota candidate to produce a court order proving legal guardianship is therefore to ask for a document the law does not contemplate for adults, which is why the requirement was stayed in the petitioner’s case. That is not to say the sponsorship itself goes unverified; the authorities remain free to satisfy themselves, through the affidavit and evidence the guidelines otherwise require, that the NRI sponsor is genuinely the candidate’s near relative and supporter.
It should be kept in mind that this is an interim order, and the relief is confined to the petitioner. The Court has recorded only a prima facie view; it has issued notice, and the final position will be settled after the MCC and the Union file their response and the matter is heard on October 12. Candidates in a similar position should not read the order as a general dispensation, but it does signal the Court’s initial approach, that the guardianship-certificate requirement, drawn from a statute meant for minors, sits uneasily with a quota open to adult candidates.
