Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 1093
2026 DHC 8630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH, J.
MS. Ashi Agarwal – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7955 of 2026
Decided On : 01-10-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain Adv, Mr. Omar Hoda Adv, Mr. Uday Bhatia Adv, Mr. Aviral Jain Adv, Mr. Abhinav Chakrabarty
For the Respondents : Ms Puja S. Kalra CGSC, Mr. Sanjay Khanna (SC), Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Ms. Meemansa Dixit, Advs., Mr. Arjun Mitra Senior Advocate and Ms. Jayanti Jha, Advocate.
Important Points
Subject
Education Law - Entrance Examinations
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - Academic Matters - Scope of interference - Constitutional courts should exercise restraint in academic matters and not substitute their own views for those of expert bodies unless there is manifest arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions. (Para 53, 54, 57)
(C) Eligibility Criteria - JEE (Advanced) - Strict adherence - Mandatory eligibility criteria regarding the year of first appearance in Class XII cannot be relaxed on grounds of sympathy or alleged prior errors, as it would disturb the merit-based system. (Para 69, 71, 72)
(D) Moulding of Relief - Supernumerary seats - Prerequisites - Power to mould relief to prevent academic loss requires a prior determination that the loss was attributable to an error or illegality by the authorities. (Para 78, 79)
Issues: Whether the petitioner was eligible for JEE (Advanced) 2026 and whether the court could interfere with the technical evaluation of JEE (Main) 2025 to grant admission.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gunjan Sinha Jain, Omar Hoda, Uday Bhatia, Aviral Jain, Abhinav Chakrabarty
For the Respondents: Puja S Kalra, Sanjay Khanna, Pragya Bhushan, Naman Dwivedi, Saurabh Pandey, Jaya Choudhary, Meemansa Dixit, Arjun Mitra, Jayanti Jha
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers:
“A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to set aside the Rejection Order (dt. 18.05.2026) passed by Respondent No. 3 qua the petitioner’s candidature and admission to IIT;
B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, command or order to the Respondents qua the petitioner’s admission and candidature to IIT (B. Tech) in a manner that the petitioner’s academic year, which would have started in the year 2025 (if not for Respondents’ errors identified by the petitioner in her JEE (Main) 2025 Session 1 Paper and the petitioner being restrained to attend JEE (Main) 2025 Session 2 Paper), is preserved.
C. Pass such order or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AS PER THE PETITIONER
2. The petitioner is a 19-year-old student who completed her Class XII examination from Army Public School, Bareilly, in the academic session 2023 - 2024. After taking a drop of 1 year, she appeared in JEE (Main) 2025, Session-I, conducted by the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) on 28.01.2025.
3. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, through the Ministry of Education. Respondent No. 2 is the NTA, which conducts the JEE (Main) examination. Respondent No. 3 is the Organising Chairman of JEE (Advanced) 2026 at IIT Roorkee, which organised the said examination, conducted under the supervision of the Joint Admission Board.
4. Upon release of her response sheet and the provisional answer key, the petitioner alleged discrepancies in the evaluation of five questions, namely Questions 36, 37 and 38 of Physics and Questions 51 and 54 of Chemistry. According to her, she had answered these questions correctly but had been deprived of 20 marks and subjected to 5 marks of negative marking. She accordingly addressed representations to the NTA seeking rectification. The NTA, however, did not accept her contention and maintained that there was no error in the computer-based examination system.
5. The petitioner thereafter appeared for JEE (Main) 2025, Session-II, on 02.04.2025. She reached the examination centre at about 8:25 a.m. but, while awaiting entry into the examination hall, suddenly became unwell and vomited. Though she recovered shortly thereafter, the officials at the centre did not permit her to enter the examination hall. The petitioner further alleges that she and her mother were physically assaulted by the security personnel when they requested that she be permitted to take the examination.
6. The result of JEE (Main) 2025 was declared on 18.04.2025, wherein the petitioner secured a percentile of 85.9241340. She maintained that but for the alleged incorrect evaluation in Session-I and her exclusion from Session-II, she would have obtained a percentile sufficient to qualify for JEE (Advanced) 2025.
7. The petitioner accordingly instituted W.P.(C) No. 5538/2025 before this Court on 23.04.2025, seeking revision of her JEE (Main) score and permission to participate in JEE (Advanced) 2025. During the proceedings, the NTA placed on record an audit log concerning the petitioner’s examination.
8. The petitioner, upon examining the same, alleged discrepancies including incorrect dates, time-stamps recorded after the conclusion of the examination, inconsistent questions/option identification numbers and a mismatch between the audit log and the response sheet in respect of some questions.
9. The petitioner also sought production of the rough sheets allegedly retained by the NTA after her examination, contending that the same would demonstrate the answers worked out by her in respect of the disputed questions.
10. Notice was issued on the said application on 02.04.2026; however, according to the petitioner, the rough sheets were not produced.
11. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed a rejoinder relying upon the
