Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of JEE Aspirants' Plea Against National Testing Agency

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition by two JEE aspirants against the National Testing Agency, citing non-genuine response sheets. The court modified the imposed costs to community service instead.

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has upheld a previous decision dismissing a writ petition by two JEE aspirants against the National Testing Agency (NTA). The students alleged discrepancies in their response sheets for the 2025 entrance exam. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, however, altered the initial order that imposed costs on the aspirants, directing them to perform community service instead.

The appeal was filed by the students challenging a single judge's order from September 22, which rejected their claims. The judge had determined that the response sheets they relied on were not authentic. The National Cyber Forensic Laboratory (NFCL) report was considered, leading to a cost of Rs 30,000 being imposed on each student. The division bench later modified this, requiring community service instead.

Community Service as an Alternative

In a December 22 order, one appellant was instructed to provide community service at an old age home from May 15 to June 15, daily between 11 am and 1 pm. The other appellant was directed to serve at a child care centre in Ghaziabad during the same period. This decision replaced the monetary penalty initially imposed on them.

The division bench noted that the forensic report revealed missing browser logs at the time of downloading the alleged scorecards from the appellants' devices. "We find no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusions arrived at by the single judge," stated the bench. They found the students' claims mathematically inconsistent and contrary to established examination procedures.

Examination Ban Clarified

The NTA's counsel informed the court that while the aspirants were barred from taking JEE exams in 2025 and 2026, they could still appear for other examinations. The court clarified that this debarment should not be seen as a stigma affecting their future academic opportunities.

The issues raised by the students involved disputed facts and allegations of manipulation, which could not be resolved by a constitutional court in its writ jurisdiction. The bench concluded that these matters were beyond their scope to adjudicate.

With inputs from PTI