Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
HARSHIT AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-12514/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anuraag Mehta, Mr. Ganga Sagar Singh, Mr. Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya, Mr. Adarsh Verma
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Ms. Monika Tiwari, Mr. Suryans Agrrwal (for R-1), Mr. Vikas Kr. Sharma (for R-3), Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, Mr. Nipun Jain (for R-6), Ms. Riya Sachdeva (for CBI)

A candidate's admission to a professional course cannot be cancelled solely based on inclusion in an investigation list when the candidate is not an accused but only a witness, absent any prima facie finding of malpractice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Right to pursue higher education - Affirmative obligation of State - Cancellation of admission to medical course based on alleged malpractice in entrance examination - Petitioner not an accused but only a witness in investigation - Absence of prima facie findings of malpractice - Right accrued by clearing entrance exam must be protected - Academic progress cannot be disrupted on unjustifiable grounds.

(B) Mandamus - Issued to permit continuance of studies when cancellation is based solely on inclusion in investigation list without any culpability established. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner passed the 12th standard examination and appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 entrance examination, securing a rank and admission to a government medical college. The investigating agency issued a summons, and the testing agency issued a show cause notice leading to withdrawal of the scorecard and cancellation of admission based on a list of 22 candidates allegedly involved in malpractices. The investigating agency later filed a chargesheet in which the petitioner was named only as a witness and not as an accused.

Findings of Court:
The court held that since the petitioner was not an accused but only a witness, there could be no prima facie findings of malpractice. The cancellation of admission disrupted the petitioner's academic progress on unjustifiable grounds. The right to pursue higher education, though not explicitly a fundamental right, is an affirmative obligation of the State and cannot be curtailed lightly. A mandamus was issued to permit the petitioner to continue the medical course.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of admission to the MBBS course based on allegations of malpractice was justified when the petitioner was not an accused but only a witness in the ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate's admission to a professional course secured through merit in a public entrance examination cannot be cancelled merely because the candidate's name appears in an investigation list, especially when the investigating agency has not arraigned the candidate as an accused and no prima facie finding of malpractice exists. The State's obligation to protect the right to education requires valid, genuine, and compelling reasons for any curtailment. Result : Petition allowed. Mandamus issued to permit the petitioner to continue MBBS classes. Interim applications disposed of.

JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

“a). Direct the Respondents to allow Petitioner to continue attending their MBBS classes, and be pleased to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

b). Direct the Respondents to issue a similar order in favor of Petitioner as was granted to the student namely 'Kirtee Koushika Panda', who was also included in the same list of students terminated from the MBBS course along with Petitioner and was similarly under investigation by the CBI and who, despite being part of the said suspected list, was permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to continue her studies and appear in the end semester examination.

c). Pass any such order as this Hon'ble Court may deemfit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner passed his 12th standard examination in 2022 and subsequently appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 examination conducted on 05.05.2024. The result of the same was declared on 04.06.2024, whereby the petitioner obtained an All India Rank of 28,106 and General Category Rank of 11,234. A revised score card was issued on 26.07.2024, as per which the petitioner scored 651 out of 720 total marks.

3. Consequently, the petitioner through the counselling process was admittedto the MBBS course at Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital, Balangir, Odisha.

4. The respondent No. 4 namely, Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) issued summons dated 15.08.2024 directing the petitioner to appear for investigation at the CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch (“ACB”), Bhubaneswar, in connection with the alleged NEET-UG 2024 examination irregularities.

5. The respondent No. 1, namely the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2024 to the petitioner through his registered email ID, requiring him to show cause why he should not be debarred.

6. The petitioner duly replied to the said Show Cause Notice. However, the respondent No. 1 proceeded to withdraw the NEET-UG 2024 result/scorecard of petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the admission of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent No. 5, i.e. Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital, Balangir, Odisha.

7. The aforesaid cancellation of admission is based on the letter dated 23.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 6, i.e. National Medical Commission, which reads as under:

8. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, wherein it is mentioned that the CBI is investigating into the allegations of leakage of NEET-UG 2024 question paper and that the CBI shared a list of 22 candidates who have been identified by them as being involved in various malpractices. The roll number, application number, and name of the petitioner was also mentioned in the list at serial no. 18 as provided by CBI. It was on the basis of these allegations of malpractice that the admission of the petitioner has been cancelled.

9. Ms. Riya Sachdeva, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Anupam S. Mishra, learned special public prosecutor for the CBI, and states that the CBI has already filed a chargesheet in the matter and the petitioner is not an accused as per the said chargesheet. The petitioner has only been named as a witness. In the present case, the only reason for cancellation of admission and removal of the name of the petitioner from the course is that there were allegations against the petitioner of malpractices regarding the NEET-UG 2024 Examination. There is no other ground available for the said action against the petitioner.

10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

11. 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.

12. The st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIJasmeet Singh, JHARSHIT AGRAWAL – AppellantVersusNATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS. – RespondentW.P.(C)-12514/2025

A candidate's admission to a professional course cannot be cancelled solely based on inclusion in an investigation list when the candidate is not an accused but only a witness, absent any prima facie finding of malpractice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
HARSHIT AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-12514/2025