NEET Candidate Named as Witness in CBI Probe Restored by Delhi HC

In a significant verdict ensuring the protection of academic careers, the Delhi High Court has ordered the reinstatement of an MBBS student whose admission was cancelled following his alleged involvement in the NEET-UG 2024 examination irregularities. The Court ruled that status as a witness in a CBI investigation does not constitute valid grounds to terminate a student's admission.

Case Background

The petitioner, Harshit Agrawal, secured admission to the MBBS course at Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital, Balangir, Odisha, based on his merit in the NEET-UG 2024 examination. Following allegations of paper leaks and malpractice, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) launched a massive probe, creating a list of suspected candidates.

Mr. Agrawal was served with a show-cause notice by the National Testing Agency (NTA), which subsequently resulted in the cancellation of his result and, by extension, the termination of his medical admission. The student approached the Delhi High Court, challenging this peremptory action.

The Arguments

Petitioner’s Stand: The petitioner argued that his exclusion from the medical course was arbitrary and unjust, especially given that he was not an accused in the chargesheet filed by the CBI. He cited the case of another student, Kirtee Koushika Panda, who, despite being on the suspected list, was permitted by the Supreme Court to continue her studies and appear in semester examinations.

Respondent’s Position: The NTA maintained that the cancellation was based on the CBI's list of 22 suspected candidates involved in malpractice. The CBI, appearing through its counsel, clarified that while the petitioner’s name appeared in its list during the initial stages of investigation, he was subsequently treated only as a witness in the filed chargesheet.

Legal Analysis

Justice Jasmeet Singh emphasized that the cancellation of an admission—a right earned through merit—must be backed by compelling, genuine, and valid evidence. The Court drew a sharp distinction between being an "accused" in a criminal matter and being a "witness."

The Court observed, "The statement of the counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI that the petitioner is not an accused but is only a witness, makes it apparent that there cannot be any prima-facie findings of the petitioner committing any malpractices."

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting the educational trajectory of students against unsubstantiated administrative actions. The Court noted:

• "The valuable right accrued to the petitioner by clearing the entrance exam, i.e. NEET-UG needs to be protected."
• "The right to pursue higher or professional education even though not explicitly spelt out as a fundamental right in part III of the Constitution of India, it is an affirmative obligation on the part of the state to ensure this right and the same cannot be permitted to be curtailed, lightly."

The Verdict

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume his MBBS classes. By clarifying that mere suspicion, unaccompanied by formal accusations of malpractice, cannot result in the life-altering termination of a student's medical seat, the Court has set a high bar for regulatory bodies regarding the cancellation of candidate admissions based on pending investigations.