How JNU’s admission model gives marginalised students a leg-up

Why in the News

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has allowed Jawaharlal Nehru University to continue applying its “deprivation points” model in admissions, subject to the final outcome of the challenge to it. That challenge was brought by an aspirant to a postgraduate course at the university, and the substantive plea is still being heard by a single judge. The model, in place in some form since the 1970s, awards additional points on the entrance test score to candidates from backward districts, to women and transgender applicants, and to Kashmiri migrants. What is contested is whether adding measured points for regional and structural disadvantage produces a truer ranking of ability, or whether it displaces the entrance test as the basis of selection.

What is the deprivation points model?

1. A weighting added to the entrance score: Applicants to undergraduate and postgraduate courses can be awarded a maximum of 12 deprivation points, which are added to the entrance test score before final merit is determined.
2. It targets disadvantage the reservation categories do not capture: The points are directed at candidates from backward regions, at women and transgender persons, and at displaced groups, cutting across social category.
3. It is unique to one university: No other institution in the country operates a comparable points based deprivation weighting in admissions.
4. Its age is part of its standing: The model has been part of the university’s admissions process in some form since the 1970s.

How are the points calculated?

1. The district of origin is the first determinant: Districts are classified for the current admissions cycle into Quartile 1, meaning backward, and Quartile 2, meaning relatively less backward.
2. Four Census indicators fix the quartile: The classification uses the percentage of female illiteracy, the percentage of agricultural workers, the percentage of rural population, and the percentage of households with no toilet within the premises.
3. Undergraduate weighting: A candidate gets six points for a Quartile 1 district and four points for a Quartile 2 district.
4. Postgraduate weighting: The corresponding figures are three points and two points respectively.
5. Kashmiri migrants: The system provides five deprivation points to Kashmiri migrant candidates.
6. Female and transgender candidates, higher band: They receive seven points where they fall within categories including Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Classes, Person with Disability, Quartile 1 or Quartile 2.
7. Female and transgender candidates, base band: They receive five points where they are from the unreserved category and do not fall in either district quartile.
8. Which programmes it covers: Points are awarded for undergraduate, postgraduate, certificate of proficiency and advanced diploma of proficiency programmes, and doctoral programmes were excluded in 2017 after the university adopted the 2016 University Grants Commission admission guidelines.

How has the system changed over time?

1. The parameters have never been fixed: Both the number of points and the criteria used to identify deprivation have been revised repeatedly over the decades.
2. It was withdrawn once and brought back: The system was withdrawn in 1984 and restored from 1995-96 after pressure from the students’ union, in a modified form.
3. Research degrees were carved out in 2017: Deprivation points were discontinued for Master of Philosophy and doctoral admissions. They were retained for undergraduate and postgraduate admissions.
4. Controversy has tracked it throughout: The model has drawn objection at intervals since its introduction, of which the present writ challenge is the latest instance.

Why was the system put in place?

1. To stop the university selecting for prior advantage: It was introduced so that the university did not merely draw students who had already benefited from greater educational opportunities.
2. The founding mandate was national, not local: The university was created by an Act of Parliament and was not established for Delhi alone, so it was expected to draw talent from across the country.
3. Test scores are an incomplete measure of merit: Academic performance alone cannot be treated as a complete measure of merit when candidates come from vastly different social, economic and regional circumstances.
4. It equalises the conditions of competition: Districts were grouped by objective indicators of development, with candidates from more deprived regions receiving additional weightage, so that the comparison between candidates is made on more comparable terms.

Does adding points to an entrance score redefine merit or dilute it?

1. The innovation is that it is not category based: The model turns on the structural deprivation and inequalities that shape educational opportunity, rather than on the social category a candidate belongs to.
2. It reaches disadvantage that reservation does not: A quota operates on identity, so it cannot distinguish between a candidate from a metropolitan school and one from a district with high female illiteracy and no household sanitation.
3. Geography carries socio historical marginalisation: Any understanding of merit becomes more complicated once region and location are recognised as determinants of the opportunity a candidate had.
4. The counter case is procedural, not ideological: The challenge before the Delhi High Court does not dispute that regional disadvantage exists, it questions whether an award of up to 12 points on an entrance score is a proportionate way to correct for it.

What does cross country evidence show about targeted admission measures?

1. The practice is widespread but not universal: Around one third of the world’s countries use affirmative action or targeted quotas to improve educational access, according to the 2026 Global Education Monitoring Report of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
2. Geography is an accepted basis elsewhere too: Those measures include quotas and weightings based on geographic or development indicators, not only on social identity.
3. Five countries are named as showing results: The report records that India, Brazil, China, Israel and Sri Lanka have seen increased enrolment among under represented groups because of targeted measures.
4. The evidence establishes direction, not design: The report speaks to enrolment outcomes at the national level, so it supports the case for targeting without settling how many points a specific indicator should carry.

Challenges to the deprivation points model

1. District level indicators miss intra district inequality: A quartile score attaches to a whole district, so an affluent urban household inside a backward district collects the same points as a landless household in the same district. Eg. Backward districts routinely contain a district headquarters town with private schooling of metropolitan standard. Fix. Compute the weighting from the candidate’s school and block of study rather than from the district of domicile alone.
2. The indicator set is anchored to ageing Census data: Female illiteracy, agricultural worker share, rural population share and household sanitation are drawn from Census figures that predate a decade of change in each. Eg. Household sanitation coverage changed substantially across districts after the national sanitation mission, which the underlying figures do not reflect. Fix. Recompute district quartiles against the Census 2027 returns and fix a mandatory revision cycle thereafter.
3. Domicile is provable and therefore gameable: Points that depend on the district of origin create an incentive to establish a domicile record in a Quartile 1 district. Eg. Domicile and residence certificates for educational benefit have been a recurring subject of litigation in State admissions. Fix. Verify the district claim against the school of last attendance rather than against a residence certificate.
4. Additive points interact unpredictably with statutory quotas: A candidate can hold both a reserved category seat entitlement and a high deprivation score, which compounds two corrections applied for overlapping reasons. Eg. A Scheduled Caste woman from a Quartile 1 district draws the maximum deprivation band on top of category reservation. Fix. Publish the category wise cut off effect of the points each cycle, so the combined weighting is visible and can be calibrated.
5. Admission support is not the same as completion support: Points widen entry, but the language, foundational and financial gaps that follow entry are not addressed by the admission formula. Eg. Dropout and completion gaps for first generation entrants persist even in institutions with strong entry side affirmative action. Fix. Attach a funded bridge programme and mentorship entitlement to every candidate admitted on deprivation points.
6. The scheme rests on university policy, not on statute: Because the model is an executive decision of the academic council, it can be withdrawn or curtailed without any legislative process. Eg. It was withdrawn in 1984 and restored only after sustained student mobilisation. Fix. Embed the deprivation weighting in the university’s statutes so that any change requires approval by the university’s statutory bodies and the visitor.

Conclusion

The model’s real claim is not that it helps disadvantaged candidates, which any quota does, but that it measures disadvantage on indicators that a category based quota cannot see, and applies the correction as a graded score rather than a reserved seat. Its weakness is the same as its strength, since a weighting anchored to district averages and dated indicators will always be blunt at the level of the individual candidate. The Delhi High Court has left the system operating for now, and the substantive question of whether a 12 point addition to an entrance score is a proportionate correction is still before a single judge.

Affirmative action in Indian higher education

1. What it covers: Affirmative action in admissions operates through reserved seats, relaxed qualifying marks and, in a small number of institutions, additional weightage on entrance scores.
2. The statutory reservation in central institutions: Central educational institutions reserve 15 per cent of seats for Scheduled Castes, 7.5 per cent for Scheduled Tribes, 27 per cent for Other Backward Classes excluding the creamy layer, and 10 per cent for the Economically Weaker Sections.
3. The access problem it addresses: The Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education stands at about 28.4 per cent, well short of the National Education Policy 2020 target of 50 per cent by 2035.
4. The scale of the system: India runs the world’s second largest higher education system, with total enrolment of roughly 4.65 crore students across more than 1,168 universities and 45,473 colleges.

Constitutional framework governing affirmative action in education

1. Article 15(4): Enables the state to make special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
2. Article 15(5): Enables reservation in admission to educational institutions, including private unaided institutions, other than minority institutions.
3. Article 15(6): Enables reservation of up to 10 per cent of seats for the Economically Weaker Sections among citizens not covered by the earlier clauses.
4. Article 29(2): Bars denial of admission to any state maintained or state aided educational institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
5. Article 46: Directs the state to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, in particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
6. Article 21A: Guarantees free and compulsory education to all children between six and fourteen years, which is the foundation stage the higher education gaps trace back to.

Laws and rules governing reservation in educational institutions

1. Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006: Prescribes the category wise reservation of seats in central educational institutions and provides for annual increases in intake so that unreserved seats are not reduced.
2. Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019: Inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to create the Economically Weaker Sections reservation in education and public employment.
3. Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Act, 2019: Restores the institution as the unit for computing teaching post reservation, in place of the department wise roster.
4. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Requires private unaided schools to reserve at least 25 per cent of entry level seats for children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections.
5. University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Establishes the Commission with power to determine and maintain standards in higher education. The Commission issues admission guidelines binding on universities under that power.

Government initiatives for educational access of disadvantaged groups

1. PM Young Achievers Scholarship Award Scheme for Vibrant India: Provides scholarships to students from Other Backward Classes, Economically Backward Classes and De notified Tribes for schooling and higher education.
2. National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste Students: Funds Master of Philosophy and doctoral research by Scheduled Caste scholars in recognised universities and institutions.
3. National Overseas Scholarship: Funds postgraduate and doctoral study abroad for Scheduled Caste, De notified Tribe, landless agricultural labourer and traditional artisan candidates.
4. Ishan Uday: A special scholarship scheme of the University Grants Commission for students from the North Eastern region pursuing general degree and technical courses.
5. Pradhan Mantri Uchchatar Shiksha Protsahan Yojana: Provides central sector scholarships to meritorious students from low income families for undergraduate and postgraduate study.

Back2Basics: Jawaharlal Nehru University

1. What it is: A central university funded through the University Grants Commission and administered under the Ministry of Education, with the President of India as its visitor.
2. Its academic character: It is organised around schools and centres rather than conventional departments, and is oriented predominantly towards postgraduate and research programmes.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2024, GS1, 15 marks] Despite comprehensive policies for equity and social justice, underprivileged sections are not yet getting the full benefits of affirmative action envisaged by the Constitution. Comment.”