THE RESERVATION GAP AT JNU: 29 CENTRES OFFER NO SC–ST PHD SEATS AS SFI DEMANDS IMMEDIATE CORRECTION
October 28, 2026
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 28, 2026
A fresh controversy has erupted over doctoral admissions at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), with the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) alleging that the university’s 2026–27 PhD admission prospectus falls short of prescribed reservation requirements for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and persons with benchmark disabilities. The organisation has demanded immediate changes to the admission process, arguing that the way seats are distributed across academic centres and admission channels may leave candidates from reserved categories without opportunities to enter research programmes.
At a press conference at the Press Club of India on Wednesday, SFI leaders presented figures from the university’s admission prospectus and alleged that 29 centres had advertised no seats for either SC or ST candidates. The organisation said the issue was not merely about the number of seats announced but also about the method used to distribute them across disciplines and admission routes.
The allegations have brought the university’s reservation policy under renewed scrutiny and prompted attention from national commissions concerned with the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE CONTROVERSY
According to SFI, JNU advertised 711 regular PhD seats through three admission channels: UGC-NET, UGC-NET-JRF and GATE.
The organisation said that, against the 7.5 per cent reservation requirement for Scheduled Tribe candidates, approximately 53 seats should have been earmarked. However, the prospectus listed only 38 seats, which SFI calculated as a shortfall of around 15.
For Scheduled Caste candidates, SFI said the 15 per cent reservation requirement would translate into approximately 107 seats, while the prospectus advertised 103. The organisation also questioned the provision for persons with benchmark disabilities, claiming that only 17 seats had been earmarked against approximately 36 it considered necessary under the applicable requirement.
These figures are SFI’s assessment of the published prospectus; the allegations have not, on the information available, been established as a final finding of unlawful conduct by the university. JNU’s explanation and the applicable seat-roster calculations will be important in determining the precise nature and extent of any shortfall.
Nevertheless, the figures have raised a central question: whether the overall distribution of doctoral seats adequately reflects the reservation framework or whether the allocation process leaves gaps that disadvantage particular categories of applicants.
HOW THE “MICRO-UNIT” METHOD BECAME A POINT OF DISPUTE
SFI has attributed the alleged discrepancies to what it describes as a “micro-unit” method of allocating reserved seats. Under this approach, reservation is applied within individual centres or sub-disciplines rather than simply across the university’s total intake.
Many academic centres recruit only a small number of doctoral researchers in a particular admission cycle. When reservation percentages are applied to such small pools, the resulting fractions may not translate into an advertised seat for a particular category.
SFI argues that dividing these already limited seats further among UGC-NET, UGC-NET-JRF and GATE admission channels compounds the problem. According to the organisation, the result is that several centres advertise no seats for SC and ST candidates at all.
The dispute therefore concerns both the numerical outcome and the method by which it is produced. A university-wide percentage and the distribution of reserved seats within individual departments can yield different patterns, particularly where the number of vacancies is small.
The key issue is whether the allocation method complies with the applicable legal and administrative rules, including the relevant reservation roster and provisions governing recruitment or admission. Resolving that question requires examination of the prospectus, the seat-allocation records and the university’s explanation rather than relying solely on aggregate figures.
NATIONAL COMMISSIONS SEEK A RESPONSE
SFI said the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) had taken cognisance of a complaint concerning the alleged reservation discrepancies.
According to the organisation, the commission issued a notice to the JNU registrar on October 8, seeking information about the complaint and the action taken by the university. SFI further alleged that, after the university did not respond by the October 23 deadline, the commission issued a reminder or ultimatum on October 27, asking for a response within seven days.
The organisation also said the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) had taken cognisance of the matter.
These developments introduce an institutional dimension to the controversy. The commissions’ requests for information may help establish how the seats were calculated, what reservation roster was used and whether the university’s allocation process followed the relevant requirements. Taking cognisance of a complaint, however, is not the same as issuing a final determination that a violation has occurred.
THE QUESTION OF VACANT RESERVED SEATS
SFI has also raised concerns about the treatment of reserved seats that remained vacant in previous admission cycles. It questioned whether seats left unfilled were subsequently de-reserved and called for greater transparency over the university’s past PhD admissions.
On September 23, the organisation said it filed a Right to Information application seeking data on doctoral admissions for the 2025–26 academic session. According to SFI, the university described the information sought as “voluminous”.
The organisation has demanded the publication of category-wise admission data and a transparent reservation roster. Such information would allow applicants and the public to examine the number of seats advertised, the number of candidates admitted in each category, vacancies that remained unfilled and the treatment of any backlog.
Without sufficiently detailed records, it can be difficult to distinguish between a shortage arising from the initial allocation of seats and one resulting from vacancies after the admission process. The two situations may require different remedies under the applicable rules.
SFI DEMANDS CHANGES IN THE CURRENT ADMISSION CYCLE
The student organisation wants JNU to correct the alleged discrepancies before the 2026–27 admission process proceeds further. It has called for a revised prospectus, a transparent reservation roster, disclosure of category-wise data and measures to fill backlog vacancies.
SFI has also argued that, if viva-voce examinations continue, the university should announce a special drive to fill eligible backlog seats. Alternatively, it wants the admission process held back until the disputed reserved seats have been advertised.
The demand reflects concern that corrections made only in a future academic year may not address the opportunities potentially lost by candidates in the current cycle. Any remedial action, however, would have to be consistent with the applicable admission rules and the university’s obligations to candidates already participating in the process.
The press conference was attended by several student and political figures, including former Rajya Sabha MP Brinda Karat, former West Bengal minister Debalina Hembram, SFI All India president Adarsh M. Saji, former JNUSU president Aishe Ghosh, JNUSU vice-president Gopika Babu and SFI JNU secretary Sagar Singal.
ACCESS TO RESEARCH AND THE MEANING OF RESERVATION
The controversy touches a wider question in Indian higher education: how reservation policies operate when institutions divide a limited number of research opportunities among numerous departments and specialised fields.
Doctoral admissions determine who gets access to advanced research training, academic supervision and the qualifications that can lead to careers in universities, scientific institutions and other research organisations. When a centre advertises very few places, the distribution of those opportunities can have significant consequences for applicants.
Reservation policy is intended to secure representation for eligible groups within the framework prescribed by law. Its implementation therefore depends not only on the percentages stated in policy but also on the procedures through which seats are identified, advertised and filled.
At the same time, the exact legal position cannot be settled by comparing percentages alone. The relevant roster, the rules applicable to the particular admissions process and the treatment of small seat pools must all be examined.
For JNU, the immediate task is to clarify how the 711 seats were distributed and respond to the questions raised by SFI and the national commissions. Publishing the underlying calculations and category-wise records would help make the dispute more transparent.
The central issue now is whether the university’s admission arrangements comply with the applicable reservation requirements—and whether any necessary corrections can be made in time to protect the opportunities of eligible candidates in the ongoing academic year.
