Loss of Exam Time: Delhi HC Directs NTA to Award Grace Marks to NEET Candidate Using 'Disha Panchal' Normalisation Formula - 2025-09-15

Delhi High Court Orders NTA to Grant Grace Marks to NEET Candidate for Lost Exam Time

New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to award compensatory grace marks to a NEET (UG) 2025 candidate who lost crucial time due to mid-exam interruptions for biometric verification. Justice Vikas Mahajan, relying on the "normalisation formula" established by the Supreme Court in Disha Panchal v. Union of India , held that the prejudice caused to the student must be remedied.

The Court also mandated the NTA to establish a standing Grievance Redressal Committee to handle similar cases transparently, noting that constitutional courts cannot be expected to scrutinize CCTV footage for every aggrieved candidate.

Case Background

The petitioner, Satya Nishth, approached the High Court after facing repeated interruptions during his NEET (UG) 2025 examination on May 4, 2025. He alleged that despite facing issues with biometric verification upon entry and submitting a written undertaking to be allowed into the hall, he was disturbed again during the exam for the same verification process. This, he claimed, led to a significant loss of time and concentration in a high-stakes, time-sensitive test where every minute counts.

After the results were declared, the petitioner, having scored 529 marks (98.86 percentile), filed a writ petition seeking compensatory marks for the time lost.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Stance: Represented by Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan, the petitioner argued that he lost nearly 8-10 minutes in total, including the time required to regain composure. He contended that the NTA was at fault for the biometric snag and that any further verification could have been conducted after the exam concluded at 5:00 PM. The petitioner sought relief based on the normalisation formula laid down by the Supreme Court in the Disha Panchal case, which compensated candidates for time lost during the CLAT exam.

NTA's Defence: The NTA, represented by Standing Counsel Sanjay Khanna, countered that the petitioner arrived late and the biometric verification failed because the petitioner had locked it himself. After examining the examination centre's CCTV footage, the NTA argued that the actual time lost was only around two minutes. They further contended that the Disha Panchal formula was inapplicable as it pertained to a Computer Based Test (CBT), where time logs are available, unlike the pen-and-paper OMR-based NEET exam. The NTA placed reliance on the Supreme Court's recent order in Alakh Pandey v. NTA , where a re-test was ordered for 1563 candidates instead of applying the normalization formula, which a High-Powered Committee found could produce "skewed" results.

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

After meticulously examining the CCTV footage in the presence of both parties, the Court established the precise time lost and delivered a reasoned judgment.

1. Quantifying the Loss of Time: The Court's scrutiny of the CCTV footage confirmed two distinct interruptions: - A first interruption of 1 minute and 12 seconds . - A second interruption where the petitioner was taken out of the hall, lasting 2 minutes and 20 seconds.

The total quantifiable time lost was determined to be 3 minutes and 32 seconds . The Court deemed this loss "not insignificant" in an exam where candidates get an average of one minute per question.

"In these circumstances, loss of 03 minutes 32 seconds cannot be said to be insignificant. That apart, there is also some substance in the submission of Mr. Narayan that after having been interrupted twice, the petitioner would have taken some time to regain his composure and attention to resume his exam," the judgment noted.

2. Justification for Interruptions: The Court found no rational reason for interrupting the petitioner mid-exam, especially since an undertaking had already been secured from him before the test began. It observed that the verification could have been completed post-exam to ensure fairness.

"Biometric verification could have been completed after conclusion of the examination i.e. post 05:00 PM... Such an approach would have preserved both procedural integrity and fairness, without causing prejudice to the examinee," Justice Mahajan stated.

3. Application of Legal Precedents: The Court carefully distinguished the facts of the present case from those in Alakh Pandey . It reasoned that while Alakh Pandey involved 1563 students, making a re-test a more practical solution, the current case involved a single candidate where a re-test would be a disproportionate logistical and financial burden.

Crucially, the Court found that all data points required to apply the Disha Panchal normalisation formula (total exam duration, time lost, questions attempted, correct/incorrect answers, and original score) were readily available in this specific case, unlike the challenge of ascertaining such data for a large group.

"The different approach of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the two cases discussed above was in the factual situation of each case. Therefore, this Court finds no reason not to adopt the said normalisation formula developed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Disha Panchal (supra)," the Court concluded.

The Final Verdict

The High Court allowed the petition and issued the following directions: 1. The NTA is to award grace marks to the petitioner by applying the Disha Panchal normalisation formula. 2. An updated result and scorecard must be issued within five days. 3. To avoid disrupting the existing merit list, the petitioner will be assigned a "supernumerary rank" (e.g., 1000A if his rank falls between 1000 and 1001). 4. The petitioner will be eligible to participate in the remaining counselling rounds based on his revised rank, without affecting seats already allocated to other candidates.

As a concluding directive, the Court instructed the NTA to constitute a permanent Grievance Redressal Committee to address such issues in the future, thereby creating a formal mechanism for students to seek redress without having to approach the courts.