Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
Sanidhya Subhadarshan – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 | CM APPL. 68252/2025 | CM APPL. 78340/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anuraag Mehta, Ganga Sagar Singh, Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya, Adarsh Verma, Anurag Mehta, Anjana Devi
For the Respondents: Abhay Mani Tripathi, Monika Tiwari, Suryans Agrrwal, Shekhar Kumar, Kamaldeep, Anupam S Sharrma, Ripumadan Sharma, Vashisht Rao, Riya Sachdeva, Anisha P Dash

Admission to professional courses cannot be cancelled based on mere suspicion or peripheral involvement in an investigation where the student is not an accused. The right to pursue education is protected, and administrative action to revoke admission requires compelling grounds and formal evidence of malpractice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Admission to professional course - Cancellation of candidature - Cancellation on the basis of inclusion in a list of suspected candidates during an investigation, without any prima facie finding of malpractice, is unsustainable - Right to pursue higher or professional education is an affirmative obligation on the part of the state and cannot be curtailed lightly. (Paras 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having qualified in a competitive entrance examination, was granted admission to a professional medical course. Subsequently, the admission was cancelled by the testing authority following the receipt of an investigative report which identified the petitioner in a list of suspected candidates. It was later clarified during proceedings that the petitioner is not an accused in the ongoing investigation, but rather a witness.

Findings of Court:
The absence of any formal charges or prima facie findings of malpractice renders the cancellation of admission arbitrary and unjustifiable. The court held that a student's merit-based admission cannot be revoked without compelling and valid reasons.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of admission to a professional course solely on the basis of being under investigation, while not being an accused party, is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that in the absence of valid, genuine, and compelling reasons, an academic institution cannot curtail an individual's right to education. Since the individual is not an accused, the foundation for administrative action is deficient, and the student's protected right to pursue education takes precedence.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. assessment of respondent submissions regarding the petitioner's investigation status. (Para 8 , 9)
3. requirement of compelling evidence to justify termination of admission. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. protection of academic progress and fundamental rights to education. (Para 13)
5. issuance of directive to permit continuation of mbbs courses. (Para 14 , 15)

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 permit the Petitioner to continue attending MBBS classes, and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'bleCourt may deem just, fit, and proper in the interest of justice.

b. Direct the Respondents to extend to the Petitioner the same relief as granted to Ms. Kirtee Koushika Panda, who was similarly situated having been terminated from her MBBS course and being under investigation by the CBI and who, despite being included in the same list of suspected candidates, was permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to continue her MBBS Studies and appear in the end-semester examination.”

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 scored 558 out of 720 total marks.

3. Consequently, the petitioner through the counselling process was admitted to the MBBS course at Government Medical College, Machilipatnam, Kara Agraharam, near Radar Station, Andhra Pradesh.

4. The respondent No. 4 namely, Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) issued summons dated 11.08.2024 directing the petitioner to appear for investigation at the CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch (“ACB”), Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 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 petitioner was issued a relieving letter by the respondent No. 5, i.e. Government Medical College, Machilipatnam, Kara Agraharam, near Radar Station, Andhra Pradesh.

7. The aforesaid action was taken on the basis of a letter dated 25.11.2024, issued by the Medical Examination Cell, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, which reads as under:

8. It is stated on behalf of the respondent No.1, 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 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 pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIJasmeet Singh, JSanidhya Subhadarshan – AppellantVersusNational Testing Agency – RespondentW.P.(C) 12857/2025 | CM APPL. 68252/2025 | CM APPL. 78340/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
Sanidhya Subhadarshan – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 | CM APPL. 68252/2025 | CM APPL. 78340/2025