In a significant ruling aimed at ensuring fairness in the NEET-UG examination process, the Delhi High Court has directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to constitute a standing Grievance Redressal Committee to address issues faced by candidates who suffer loss of examination time due to technical glitches or procedural lapses, through no fault of their own.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, presiding over the matter, emphasized that constitutional courts cannot be expected to review CCTV footage for every such complaint. Instead, he stressed the need for a transparent and expert-driven mechanism to examine grievances and award relief, if necessary.
“Such cases ought to be examined by a body of experts in a transparent and fair manner,” Justice Mahajan observed. He added that the committee may also devise a more appropriate formula for addressing such issues beyond mere judicial intervention.
The directive was issued on July 28 while disposing of a petition filed by a NEET-UG 2025 aspirant who alleged loss of exam time and mental distress due to biometric verification delays at his test centre — Trishla Devi Kanohar Lal Balika Inter College in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
According to the petitioner, technical issues during biometric authentication delayed his entry into the exam hall, allowing him inside only five minutes before the test began. He was later asked to step out mid-exam for biometric re-verification, during which he was required to write an application in both English and Hindi. This, he claimed, disturbed his concentration during the crucial early phase of the test.
The candidate, who secured a 98.86 percentile in NEET-UG 2025, sought compensatory marks and preservation of CCTV footage as evidence. The court noted that due to no fault of the candidate, he lost approximately three minutes and 32 seconds of exam time.
Recognizing the unfair impact, the court directed NTA to award grace marks to the petitioner using the normalization formula laid down by the Supreme Court in a previous case. The revised result is to be updated and communicated to the candidate within five days, and he shall be allowed to participate in ongoing counselling rounds without affecting already allocated seats.
“All candidates stand on an equitable pedestal when they have been given the same amount of time for an exam… Having taken away a portion of the time allotted to him and rationalising the said act by alleging non-utilisation of the same by the student would not be justified,” the court noted.
