Delhi High Court Affirms Right to Higher Education as Fundamental, Allows NEET Student to Continue MBBS Amid Paper Leak Probe

In a significant ruling emphasizing the sanctity of educational opportunities, the Delhi High Court has declared that the right to pursue higher or professional education constitutes a fundamental right that cannot be lightly curtailed by the state. Justice Jasmeet Singh, in his order dated January 7, 2026, in the case of Harshit Agrawal v. National Testing Agency and Ors. , directed authorities to permit petitioner Harshit Agrawal to resume his MBBS classes at Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital in Odisha. The decision came in the wake of allegations surrounding the NEET-UG 2024 examination irregularities, where Agrawal's admission was cancelled based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) list of suspected candidates. This judgment underscores the court's reluctance to disrupt a student's academic journey without compelling evidence of wrongdoing, particularly when the individual is merely a witness in an ongoing probe rather than an accused.

The case highlights broader tensions in India's competitive examination landscape, especially following the high-profile NEET-UG 2024 paper leak scandal that shook public confidence in the National Testing Agency (NTA). With thousands of aspiring medical students affected, the ruling provides crucial relief to those ensnared in investigations without proven culpability, potentially setting a precedent for balancing investigative needs with individual rights.

Case Background

Harshit Agrawal, a young aspirant from the general category, cleared his Class 12 examinations in 2022 and subsequently prepared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024, a gateway to medical education in India. The examination, conducted by the NTA on May 5, 2024, saw over 24 lakh students appear, making it one of the world's largest standardized tests. Agrawal performed admirably, securing an All India Rank (AIR) of 28,106 and a General Category Rank of 11,234. His revised scorecard, issued on July 26, 2024, reflected a score of 651 out of 720 marks—a testament to his merit-based preparation.

Through the centralized counseling process managed by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), Agrawal was allotted a seat in the MBBS program at Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital in Balangir, Odisha, formerly known as the Government Medical College and Hospital. He joined the course on October 24, 2024, embarking on what should have been the start of his professional journey in medicine.

However, the landscape shifted dramatically due to the NEET-UG 2024 paper leak controversy. Allegations of question paper tampering and unfair advantages surfaced soon after the results were declared on June 4, 2024, prompting a nationwide uproar and Supreme Court interventions. The CBI, tasked with investigating the irregularities under the Anti-Corruption Branch in Bhubaneswar, issued summons to Agrawal on August 15, 2024, requiring him to appear for questioning. This placed him on a suspect list of 22 candidates identified by the agency.

The NTA followed suit with a show-cause notice dated October 23, 2024, emailed to Agrawal, seeking explanations as to why he should not be debarred from future examinations. Despite Agrawal's prompt reply asserting his innocence and merit, the NTA withdrew his scorecard. Consequently, the National Medical Commission (NMC), the regulatory body for medical education, issued a circular on January 23, 2025, directing Odisha's Directorate of Medical Education and Training (DMET) to cancel admissions of listed candidates, including Agrawal and another student, Kirtee Koushika Panda.

DMET complied swiftly, forwarding the directive to the college on February 1, 2025. By February 10, 2025, Agrawal's admission was formally terminated, derailing his academic progress mid-semester. Aggrieved, Agrawal filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court on September 25, 2025 (as per interim orders referenced), seeking reinstatement and parity with Panda, who had been allowed by the Supreme Court to continue her studies despite similar circumstances.

The timeline of the case reflects the urgency of educational disruptions: from exam to admission in months, but from probe to cancellation spanning half a year, leaving students in limbo. This backdrop not only involved key players like the NTA, CBI, NMC, and DMET but also exposed systemic vulnerabilities in handling large-scale exam fraud allegations.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, led by Mr. Anuraag Mehta, along with Mr. Ganga Sagar Singh, Mr. Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya, Mr. Adarsh Verma, and Ms. Anjana Devi, mounted a robust defense centered on constitutional protections and procedural fairness. They argued that Agrawal's admission was purely merit-based, earned through transparent counseling, and that cancelling it solely on the basis of a CBI summons—without any charges or evidence of malpractice—violated his fundamental right to education. Emphasizing the affirmative state obligation to facilitate higher education, they contended that such actions disrupted academic continuity unjustifiably, especially since Agrawal had cooperated fully with the investigation.

A key pillar of their case was the principle of parity. They highlighted the Supreme Court's interim order in favor of Kirtee Koushika Panda, who, like Agrawal, was on the same CBI list but permitted to attend classes and appear for end-semester exams. The petitioners urged the court to issue a similar mandamus, arguing that treating Agrawal differently would amount to arbitrary state action under Article 14. Factual points included Agrawal's high rank, lack of prior complaints against him, and his status as a mere witness, not an accused, underscoring no prima facie case of wrongdoing.

On the respondents' side, counsel for the NTA—Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Ms. Monika Tiwari, and Mr. Suryansh Agrawal—defended the cancellation as a necessary measure to uphold examination integrity. They relied on the CBI's list of 22 candidates, which included Agrawal's details (roll number 2604010223) as potentially involved in malpractices. The NTA's counter-affidavit detailed the probe's scope, noting the agency's reliance on CBI inputs post the August 14, 2024, communication. They asserted that debarment and admission withdrawal were proportionate responses to restore public trust in NEET, given the scandal's scale affecting merit lists.

The CBI, represented by Ms. Riya Sachdeva on behalf of Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Anupam S. Mishra, clarified their position during hearings. While acknowledging the chargesheet filed in the main paper leak case, they confirmed Agrawal was named only as a witness, not an accused. However, they did not contest the petitioner's right to relief, implicitly supporting that no direct evidence linked him to irregularities. Counsel for the NMC (Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain and Mr. Nipun Jain) and the Union of India (Mr. Vikas Kumar Sharma, Senior Central Government Counsel) echoed the need for swift action against suspects but deferred to investigative findings. The college's representatives focused on compliance with NMC directives, citing no independent basis to retain the student.

These arguments framed the dispute as a clash between investigative imperatives and individual rights, with the petitioner emphasizing evidence thresholds and the respondents prioritizing systemic safeguards.

Legal Analysis

Justice Jasmeet Singh's reasoning rooted the decision in constitutional ethos, interpreting the right to higher education as an extension of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, even if not explicitly enumerated. Drawing from established jurisprudence, the court viewed education as integral to Article 21's right to life and personal liberty, imposing an affirmative duty on the state to protect earned opportunities. This aligns with precedents like Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), where the Supreme Court first recognized education as a fundamental right up to a certain level, and Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), which reinforced state obligations in professional education access.

The judgment distinguished between accused and witnesses in probe contexts, holding that mere inclusion in a suspect list does not justify academic penalties without "valid, genuine, and compelling reasons." Justice Singh noted the absence of prima facie findings against Agrawal, as affirmed by CBI counsel, rendering the cancellation arbitrary. This echoes State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) principles on quashing proceedings lacking evidence, adapted here to administrative actions impacting rights.

No direct precedents on NEET-specific cancellations were cited, but the ruling implicitly critiques overreach in exam governance, similar to Supreme Court interventions in NEET-UG 2024 (e.g., orders on re-exams and grace marks). The court clarified that while investigations like the CBI's are vital post the paper leak—linked to Bihar and Gujarat modules— they cannot presumptively penalize non-accused students, lest they undermine meritocracy. Legally, the invocation of Article 226 writ jurisdiction was apt, as it allows extraordinary remedies for fundamental rights enforcement, with the mandamus serving as a directive for restoration.

This analysis balances public interest in fair exams against private harms, emphasizing procedural due process: show-cause replies must be substantively considered, not perfunctorily dismissed. By integrating other sources, such as reports on the CBI chargesheet excluding Agrawal as accused, the judgment reinforces that witness status precludes presumptive guilt, potentially influencing future NTA protocols.

Key Observations

The court's order is replete with poignant observations underscoring the gravity of educational disruptions:

• “The right to pursue higher or professional education even though not explicitly spelt out as a fundamental right in part III of the Constitution of India, it is an affirmative obligation on the part of the state to ensure this right and the same cannot be permitted to be curtailed, lightly.”

• “The petitioner by participating in an open entrance has secured admission in the respondent No. 5 University on the basis of his merit. In case the same is to be cancelled, there has to be some valid, genuine and compelling reasons.”

• “The statement of the counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI that the petitioner is not an accused but is only a witness, makes it apparent that there cannot be any prima-facie findings of the petitioner committing any malpractices.”

• “The valuable right accrued to the petitioner by clearing the entrance exam, i.e. NEET-UG needs to be protected, as the action of cancellation of admission and removal of the name of the petitioner from the MBBS course is disrupting the academic progress of the petitioner on totally unjustifiable grounds.”

These excerpts, delivered orally by Justice Singh, encapsulate the ruling's humane approach, prioritizing equity over suspicion.

Court's Decision

In a concise yet impactful oral judgment, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, issuing a mandamus to the respondents—primarily the NTA, NMC, and the college—to permit Agrawal to continue his MBBS classes in line with the curriculum. The order, pronounced on January 7, 2026, and corrected on January 10, 2026, explicitly protected his "valuable right" accrued through merit, dismissing the cancellation as baseless given his witness status.

Practically, this means immediate reinstatement for Agrawal, allowing him to catch up on disrupted semesters without further delays. The decision's ripple effects are profound: it signals to regulatory bodies like the NTA and NMC that admissions cannot be revoked on preliminary lists alone, mandating robust evidence. For students nationwide, especially in high-stakes exams like NEET (which admits around 1 lakh candidates annually to medical seats), it offers safeguards against investigative overreach, potentially reducing arbitrary debarments in scandals.

Broader implications extend to legal practice. Writ petitions under Article 226 may see increased filings for educational relief, with courts likely to scrutinize "compelling reasons" standards. In the context of ongoing NEET reforms—post-2024 controversies—this ruling could prompt NTA guidelines on handling CBI inputs, ensuring due process for witnesses. It also bolsters the implied right to education discourse, possibly influencing policy on professional courses amid rising exam frauds. Ultimately, by affirming state duties, the judgment fosters a fairer ecosystem, where merit triumphs over mere allegation.