Delhi HC Rules That Strict Adherence to OMR Instructions Is Mandatory in NEET Exams

In a recent ruling that reinforces the necessity of strict procedural compliance in competitive examinations, the High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition filed by a NEET (UG) 2025 candidate contesting the evaluation of his OMR answer sheet. Justice Vikas Mahajan delivered the oral judgment, emphasizing that candidates are bound by the instructions provided by the testing authority.

The Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Abid Khan, appeared for the NEET (UG) 2025 examination and sought relief from the court to have five specific questions (137 to 141) recalculated. He argued that despite marking the correct answers, the National Testing Agency (NTA)’s computerized system failed to credit him for these responses, which he claimed were clearly visible to the naked eye.

After receiving no response to his initial formal challenge of the answer key, the petitioner approached the High Court to compel the NTA to revise his result and reserve a medical seat in his home state of Himachal Pradesh, pending adjudication.

Divergent Perspectives

The petitioner maintained that the computerized scanner was malfunctioning, asserting that the marks were clearly indicated. However, the NTA provided a starkly different account. Representing the NTA, standing counsel Mr. Sanjay Khanna argued that the petitioner failed to darken the OMR circles completely, opting instead to leave "spot marks."

According to the NTA’s counter-affidavit, the software is programmed to ignore incomplete marks to prevent erroneous readings. The NTA presented evidence showing that for questions 137, 139, 140, and 141, the circles were not fully filled, resulting in the scanner treating those specific entries as "unanswered."

Legal Analysis and Precedents

The Court’s analysis centered on the binding nature of the Information Bulletin and the instructions issued to candidates. Justice Mahajan noted that the instructions explicitly warned against making "stray marks" and mandated the complete darkening of a single circle.

The Court underscored that the evaluation process is automated and devoid of human interference to ensure impartiality. By failing to follow the prescribed method, the petitioner effectively caused the error himself. The Court cited the decision in Sadhana Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. (2025) , reaffirming the legal principle that educational institutions are not mandated to act contrary to their established procedures, as outlined in their information bulletins.

Key Observations

The High Court’s order highlighted the importance of fairness to the broader applicant pool, noting that any unauthorized intervention could destabilize the merit list:

• "The petitioner was well aware that in case, he does not darken the circle, as instructed, it will not be scanned by the OMR scanner."
• "The OMR sheets of all candidates were checked by the OMR scanners, without human interference, therefore, the same yardstick was applied in case of each candidate."
• "The law is well settled that Prospectus / Bulletin of Information issued by Institution / University is binding and no mandamus can be issued to the educational institutions to act contrary to their own procedure."
• "The petitioner's grievance arises solely from his own failure to darken the circles properly as per prescribed instructions."

Final Decision

Concluding that there was no evidence of arbitrariness or technical failure on the part of the NTA, the Court dismissed the petition. Justice Mahajan held that the NTA’s evaluation system was transparent and uniformly applied. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to students appearing for national-level examinations that procedural compliance is just as critical as subject mastery, and courts will generally uphold the strict, uniform application of examination rules to maintain the integrity of the merit-based allotment process.