Delhi High Court Sets Aside Grace Marks for NEET-UG Candidates, Finds 'Disha Panchal' Normalization Formula Inapplicable for OMR Exams - 2025-08-06

Delhi High Court Overturns Order Granting Grace Marks to NEET-UG Candidates

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge's decision to award "grace marks" to two NEET-UG 2025 candidates who lost time due to biometric verification issues, ruling that the "normalization formula" established in the Supreme Court's Disha Panchal judgment is inappropriate for pen-and-paper OMR-based examinations.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Sachin Datta allowed the appeals filed by the National Testing Agency (NTA), emphasizing that applying such a formula could distort merit and open floodgates for unverifiable claims.

Background of the Case

The controversy originated from writ petitions filed by two NEET-UG 2025 aspirants, Satya Nishth and Nishu Maurya. They alleged that they lost crucial examination time due to repeated interruptions for Aadhaar-based biometric verification, which they argued was no fault of their own.

A learned Single Judge had ruled in their favor, directing the NTA to award compensatory grace marks. After reviewing CCTV footage to quantify the time lost (3 minutes 32 seconds and 9 minutes 45 seconds, respectively), the Single Judge ordered the application of the normalization formula laid down by the Supreme Court in Disha Panchal v. Union of India (2018) , a case concerning the online CLAT exam. To avoid disrupting the existing merit list, the judge also directed the assignment of a "supernumerary rank" to the students.

Arguments Presented

National Testing Agency's Appeal

The NTA, represented by Senior Advocate Rupesh Kumar, challenged the Single Judge's verdict on several grounds:

* Inapplicability of Precedent: The Disha Panchal judgment pertained to a Computer-Based Test (CLAT), which is fundamentally different from the pen-and-paper OMR format of the NEET exam.

* Candidate Responsibility: The NTA presented reports from a technical agency indicating that the biometric authentication failed because the candidates had "locked" their Aadhaar biometrics, making the delay attributable to them.

* Distortion of Merit: Applying the formula results in disproportionate score increases, unfairly placing the candidates ahead of thousands of others. For instance, one petitioner's rank jumped from 24,986 to 17,595.

* Supreme Court's Stance: The NTA cited the Supreme Court's recent order in Alakh Pandey (2024) concerning the NEET-UG 2024 controversy, where a High-Powered Committee had found the Disha Panchal formula created a "skewed situation" and was unsuitable for OMR exams.

Students' Justification

Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan, appearing for the students, defended the Single Judge's order, arguing:

* Binding Precedent: The normalization principle from Disha Panchal remains the prevailing law to compensate for time loss.

* No Fault of Students: The students vehemently denied locking their Aadhaar biometrics and maintained that the interruptions were due to mismanagement at the examination center.

* Fair Compensation: They contended that without compensatory marks, their right to a fair examination was violated due to circumstances beyond their control.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The Division Bench conducted a thorough analysis and sided with the NTA. The Court highlighted several critical distinctions and principles:

Fault and Due Diligence

The Court noted that the technical agency's reports, which suggested the biometric failure was due to the candidates' own actions, were not discredited. It also pointed out that the students had arrived at the exam center shortly before the final entry time, indicating a "lack of diligence."

Inapplicability of Disha Panchal

The bench found the reliance on Disha Panchal to be "completely misconceived." It reasoned:

"Disha Panchal (supra) dealt with the loss of examination time due to Invigilator related mismanagement, software difficulties, inefficient software... In contrast, in the present case, examination was conducted in pen and paper mode... The difficulty in biometric verification cannot be equated with Invigilators’ negligence and the other infrastructural shortcomings involved in Disha Panchal (supra)."

The Court further observed that quantifying time loss in an OMR exam by reviewing CCTV footage is an "inherently subjective" exercise, unlike in a computer-based test where time loss can be precisely logged.

Flawed Concept of "Supernumerary Rank"

The Court rejected the idea of a "supernumerary rank" (e.g., 1000A), stating it has "no basis in the extant examination regulations" and "alters the inter-se-merit between candidates."

"Counselling and seat allocation in NEET (UG) functions on a rigid rank regime. Inserting an additional rank... would affect the inter-se cut off thresholds and the allocation sequence, thereby impacting the rights of other candidates."

Final Verdict and Directions

In its final verdict, the High Court set aside the Single Judge's directions to award grace marks. However, it directed the NTA to streamline its biometric processes for future examinations.

Concurring with a part of the Single Judge's order, the bench also recommended that the NTA constitute a permanent Grievance Redressal Committee to handle such complaints from candidates in a fair, transparent, and time-bound manner, preventing the need for every aggrieved student to approach the courts.