Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5904/2025 | CM APPL. 26906/2025 | CM APPL. 26907/2025 | CM APPL. 28928-29/2025 | CM APPL. 45386/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Deepak Jain, Ms. Jaspreet Aulakh, Ms. Anoushka Singh, Ms. Dashapreet Kaur, Mr. Sajal Gupta, Mr. Arsh Raina and Mr Devender
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Khanna, SC for NTA with Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Ms. Vilakshana Dayma, Ms. Pankhuri Srivastava and Ms. Alekshendra Sharma, Advs. for NTA. Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Harshita Chaturvedi, Advs. with Experts Mr. S. Shree Vishnoo and Mr. Subodh S. for NCFL. Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC with Mr. Animesh Rastogi and Mr. Rajat Dubey, Advs. for R-2/UOI and R-3/NIC.
Court emphasized the presumption in favor of official records under Indian Evidence Act, ruling against petitioners due to failure to provide credible evidence of manipulation.
Headnote:(A) Relevant Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Allegations of tampering and manipulation of examination results. (Paras 56)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Discretionary power of Constitutional Courts to adjudicate upon contested factual matters exercised in exceptional cases. (Paras 57)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the irregularities in JEE (Main) 2025 scores alleged to have been manipulated, especially discrepancies between announced and final scores for Sessions I and II. (Paras 2, 3, 25)
Findings of Court:
The forensic analysis did not support the petitioners’ claims of tampering, and the NTA’s official records were upheld. Costs imposed due to the petitioners' unclean hands. (Paras 61, 63)
Issues: Whether the petitioners' scores had been manipulated and the credibility of the technical reports concerning their scorecards and responses. (Paras 11, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the presumption in favor of official records and the necessity for reliable evidence to rebut such presumption, ruling against the petitioners due to their failure to provide convincing proof of manipulation. (Paras 55, 56)
Result: Petition dismissed; costs of Rs. 30,000 each imposed on the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks various writs against nta. (Para 2) |
| 2. grievances involve alleged score manipulation. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. allegations of tampering in session results. (Para 9) |
| 4. forensic analysis to clarify factual disputes. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. referral for forensic analysis. (Para 13) |
| 6. petitioners argue for flaws in forensic report. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. nta counters with claims of petitioners' manipulation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. official records presumption under the law. (Para 26) |
| 9. absence of crucial logs undermines petitioners' claims. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 10. court emphasizes presumption in favor of official records. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 11. court dismisses petition and imposes costs. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
1. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
“a) Issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ in order against the Respondent no. 1 and 3 directing them to allow the Petitioners to participate in JEE(Advanced) – 2025 scheduled on 18.05.2025; AND/OR
b) Pass an order extending the timeline for registration for JEE (Advanced) Examination 2025; AND/OR
c) Pass an order for an independent inquiry against the Respondent No. 1 in light of the present case; AND/OR
d) Pass an order directing the Respondent No. 1 to act upon establishment and execution of a proper Grievance Redressal Mechanism; AND/OR
e) Issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ in order against Respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 directing them to release the actual results of the Petitioners of both the Sessions based on their correct and original response sheets and allow the same to be considered as the final result for the purpose of admissions into any educational institutions; AND/OR
f) Pass an Order directing Respondent no. 1 and to establish and use a robust system to track digital footprints including but not limited to digital watermarking and tracking technology to identify potential breaches; AND/OR
g) Pass an Order awarding the cost incurred towards the present petition to the Petitioners”
2. In the present petition, petitioners have laid challenge to certain irregularities in JEE (Main) – 2025, which is conducted by respondent no.1/NTA. The format of the examination allows the candidates to sit for two consecutive attempts in Sessions I and II, whereafter, best of the two said attempts is considered as their final result.
3. The grievance ventilated is with regard to the final scorecards of the petitioners, especially with respect to their scores in Session I. Petitioners have alleged manipulation and tampering in the official records maintained by the respondents. It is stated that the scores for Session I published by respondent no.1/NTA qua the petitioners have subsequently been changed after release of the final scorecard post-Session II. Further, petitioner no.2 has also alleged irregularities with regard to his attempt in Session II.
4. Originally, the present petition was filed by three petitioners, however, Mr. Deepak Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from petitioner no.3, stated that he does not wish to pursue the matter further. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner no.3 vide order dated 14.05.2025.
5. The case of petitioner no.1, as borne out from the petition, is that result for Session I was declared by the respondent no.1/NTA on 11.02.2025 and the scorecard for the said Session [annexed as Annexure P-4], which she had accessed from NTA’s website at about 17:28:16 on the even date, shows that she has scored 98.6874923 percentile.
6. However, after her attempt in Session II of JEE (Main) – 2025, a composite result was declared on 18.04.2025 by respondent no.1/NTA [annexed as Annexure P-5] wherein it has been shown that she had scored only 25.5874923 percentile in Session I and 49.8010719 percentile in Session II.
7. Further, it has been stated that besides her scorecard for Session I, she h
