The Delhi High Court has permitted the St Stephen's College to conduct interviews for granting admission to students under the minority quota besides taking into consideration their common university entrance test scores.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma similarly permitted the Jesus and Mary College to hold interviews for the seats reserved for minority category students.

The court's order came on applications by the two minority colleges to stay a December 8, 2022, decision of the executive council of the Delhi University (DU) insisting on 100 percent weightage for CUET 2023 score for admission to minority quota.

The applications were filed in petitions by the colleges challenging the notification.

Besides the pleas of the two colleges, the court order was also passed on a petition by a woman, Sharon Ann George, against the interviews for minority students at the St Stephen's College in addition to the CUET.

The court, in its order, observed that in an earlier decision, it has already discussed the extent to which DU can regulate the admission of minority students and ruled that St Stephen's has the right to conduct interviews with 15 per cent weightage for minority students, but not for non-minority students.

"Despite this observation made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the Executive Committee in its meeting dated 08.12.2022 has decided that for the academic session 2023-24, admission to the Undergraduate Programmes shall solely be on the basis of CUET for minority seats also," said the bench, also comprising Justice Subramaniam Prasad.

"As an interim measure, this Court directs that the admission policy as framed by this Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2022 shall be followed for the Academic Year 2023-24 and the St Stephen's College will adopt the marks secured in the CUET with 85% weightage for CUET and the College's interview for shortlisted candidates with a weightage of 15% for Christian minority candidates," the court directed in its order dated July 21.

The court said there is prima face a complete lack of reasoning as to why its earlier ruling has been "given a go-by by the Respondents (DU) and indicates non-application of mind on their part while making the impugned decision"