National Testing Agency (Appellant) v. Satya Nishth & Ors. (Respondents)
LPA 490/2025
(Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Sachin Datta, J)
The controversy arose when, during the NEET-UG 2025 examination, certain candidates, including Satya Nishth (Respondent), alleged that they lost exam time as the biometric verification process at the centre was delayed. The Respondent, like other applicants, moved the Delhi High Court in a writ petition. The single judge, in his order dated 28th July 2025, decided in the respondent’s favour that the NTA should award grace marks by using the normalisation formula specified by the Supreme Court in Disha Panchal v. Union of India. The judge further intimated that the impacted candidates might be given “supernumerary” ranks (such as rank 1000A) so that others would not be displaced.
The NTA objected to this ruling, contending that the “Disha Panchal formula” was created to address sudden technical failures in computer-based tests (CBTs), like power outages or system failures. NEET-UG, however, is done in offline OMR format. In its view, the NTA applying the Disha Panchal formula in this case would disproportionally manipulate the national merit list and skew the inter-se ranking of applicants nationwide.
The Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Sachin Datta granted the NTA’s appeal. The Bench opined that the hold-up on account of biometric verification could not be equated with the system disruptions envisioned in Disha Panchal. Biometric checks were indispensable to the credibility of the exam, and occasional delays in their completion did not justify post-exam adjustments to scores or ranks. The court also did not find a legal or procedural ground for the establishment of “supernumerary” ranks, which, it said, could stall the process of counselling and allotment of seats.
Rather than giving grace marks or changing the ranking, the Division Bench instructed the NTA to work on systemic changes. It directed the streamlining of biometric verification processes to reduce delays during subsequent tests. It also instructed the formation of a Standing Grievance Redressal Committee to deal with exam-day grievances expeditiously and uniformly, eliminating the necessity for case-by-case judicial intervention, like going through CCTV footage subsequently.
The appeal was granted, as well as outstanding applications dealt with in the above terms.
