Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aayushi vs National Testing Agency on 14 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
1
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
WRIT APPEAL No. 1842 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
LAXMI DEVI AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 1874 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
SUDHANSHU AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1948 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
DARSHAN PATIDAR AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1903 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
NAVYA NAYAK
WRIT APPEAL No. 1957 of 2025
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS
Versus
YASHAHVI (MINOR) THROUGH NATURAL GUARDINA SMT. SHARDA
SHEKOKAR AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1996 of 2025
VEDIK PATIDAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
2
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
WRIT APPEAL No. 1905 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY
Versus
VAJID HUSSAIN KHAISHAGI
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 1864 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
PIYUSH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1868 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ALFAIZ AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1870 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
AKRITI SINGH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1871 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
YASHAS SEN AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1877 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ISHIKA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1878 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
PRANSHU RAIKWAR AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
3
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
WRIT APPEAL No. 1879 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRINIWAS RAVI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1881 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
NIDHI VARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1883 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
VIVEK AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1885 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ARAYANA DUBEY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1892 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCQQY AND OTHERS
Versus
AACHAL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1894 of 2025
NATINAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
TANISHKA GARG THROUGH NATURAL GAURDIAN FATHER SACHIN
GARG AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1899 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
CHAHAK KIRAR AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1900 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
RAHUL PANWAR AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
4
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
WRIT APPEAL No. 1901 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
DEEKSHA GADWAL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1902 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ANJANA NAGAR AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1904 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
DISHA AGARWAL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1906 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
Versus
GUNGUN AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1907 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
KARAN PATIDAR AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1909 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ANANYA RAO AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1910 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
NAKUL PANWAR AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
5
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
WRIT APPEAL No. 1911 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ABHISHEK PATEL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1912 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ANKIT PATEL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1913 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
SOURABH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1914 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
MEDHANSH DUBEY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1917 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ANSHJEET SINGH KHICHI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1918 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
YASH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1921 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ARYAN SHARMA AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
6
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
WRIT APPEAL No. 1923 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
VIJAYALAXMI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1924 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
SONAL YADAV AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1925 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ARPIT YADAV AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1926 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ANUSHKA YADAV AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1927 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ANAND PATIDAR AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1931 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
MUKUND AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1932 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
SACHIN JOSHI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1934 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
7
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
DEEKSHA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1935 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ANKIT PATEL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1937 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ARYAN VYAS AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1938 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
VAISHALI SINGH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1943 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
LAKSHMI SINGH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1944 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
NAVYA SHAH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1946 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
OJASWI MANDLOI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1947 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
8
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
Versus
ROHIT PRAJAPAT AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1949 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
MRINAL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1950 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
PALASH PATIDAR AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1951 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ARCHIE ANAYA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1952 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
PRARTHANA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1953 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
KRISHNA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1954 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
KU VAISHNAVI AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1955 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
AMAN JAT AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
9
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
WRIT APPEAL No. 1956 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
ARYAN KULHADE AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1958 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
AMISHI JAIN AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1960 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
YATI JAIN AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1964 of 2025
NATION TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ARNAV SAXENA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1965 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
NANDANI GHOSH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1966 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
RAGHAV VERMA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1968 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
SHREYA SHARMA AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
10
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
WRIT APPEAL No. 1971 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
MOLI GUPTA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1973 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ROHIT AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1977 of 2025
TANUSHKA
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1967 of 2025
ANKUR SHARMA
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1969 of 2025
AAYUSHI
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1974 of 2025
ATHARVA THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SANJAY KUMAR BORSE
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 1896 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
ANKITA SINGH AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1897 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
11
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
ALVEERA KHAN AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1898 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
NIVEDITHA THOPUCHARLA RAO AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1908 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
AVISHA CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1936 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Versus
SOUMYA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1945 of 2025
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
Versus
STUTI SHARMA AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1976 of 2025
NAKUL PANWAR
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1988 of 2025
CHANCHAL VERMA
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1989 of 2025
ANUSHKA SINHA
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1991 of 2025
RAHUL AHIRWAR
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
12
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1992 of 2025
GOLENDRA KUMAR
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1993 of 2025
HARSH SHARMA
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1994 of 2025
ARIANA D/O ASIF IQBAL LUCKNOWI THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN/ FATHER ASIF IQBAL LUCKNOWI
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 2002 of 2025
SANIYA BANO
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 1972 of 2025
SWARNIMA SINGH
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTH-
ERS
WRIT APPEAL No. 2026 of 2025
JAYATI
Versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tushar Mehta - learned Solicitor General of India (appeared through
V.C.) along with Shri Rupesh Kumar - learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.
Pankhuri Shrivastava and Shri Romesh Dave - Deputy Solicitor General of India
assisted by Ms. Diksha Paliwal, Shri Atharva Dave and Ms. Bhumika Dwivedi -
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 14-07-2025
16:50:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
13
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
learned counsel for the appellant(s) / respondent(s) - National Testing Agency and
Union of India.
Shri Vivek Sharan - learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mradul Bhat-
nagar, Shri N.S. Bhati, Shri Chinmaya Mehta, Shri Aditya Sanghi - learned Senior
Counsel (appeared through V.C.) along with Shri Kamal Tiwari, Shri Rohit Kumar
Mangal, Shri Ajay Jain, Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, - learned counsel for the appel-
lant(s) / respondent(s).
Reserved on : 10th July, 2025
Delivered on : 14th July, 2025
ORDER
Per : Justice Vivek Rusia
Since the subject matter of these writ appeals is identical in
nature, with the joint request of the parties, they are analogously
heard and decided by this Court's order.
These batch of writ appeals are filed by the National Testing
Agency (NTA) as well as by the students under Section 2(1) of
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the common order
dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.
17344 of 2025 and connected petitions filed by 78 students who
appeared in the NEET (UG) 2025 examination held on 04.05.2025
from various centres located in Indore and Ujjain.
02. The writ petitions were filed by the students seeking the
relief of re-test or any suitable alternative solution because in the
examination of NEET (UG), 2025 on 04.05.2025 a severe
thunderstorm and rainfall caused power outage during examination
hours in several examination centres in Indore as well as in Ujjain
which adversely affected their ability to attempt the paper in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
optimal conditions. According to the petitioners, there was a
visibility issue in these centres due to the lack of light or very dim
light. To address such eventualities, there was no proper
arrangement for backup lights during power cuts or failures by the
NTA and local administration. The writ petitions were contested by
the appellants with an admission that though there was a power
outage during the examination in question, but denied that natural
light was not sufficient to answer the questions by the students and
adversely affected their ability and concentration.
03. The Writ Court vide final order dated 23.06.2025 has
allowed the petitions and directed NTA to conduct a re-examination
for all petitioners / students who had approached the Court before
the release of the Provisional Answer Key on 03.06.2025 (cutoff
date) while denying re-test to those petitioners/students who had
approached the court after 03.06.2025 and also clarified that NEET
rank of the petitioners giving re-test would be solely based on the
marks obtained in the re-test.
04. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeals are filed by
NTA challenging the direction of re-examination and also by the
students who have been denied re-test on the ground that they had
approached the Court after 03.06.2025 (cutoff date) on which NTA
released Provisional Answer Key.
CASE OF PETITIONERS
05. The NEET (UG) 2025 was conducted by the National
Testing Agency (NTA) which is an autonomous institute under the
Ministry of Education, Government of India in pen-and-paper OMR
mode on 04.05.2025 from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm (03 hours) across
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
5468 centres nationwide including 49 centres in Indore and 09 in
Ujjain. A total of 22.76 lakh candidates appeared for the
examination out of which 27,264 candidates were from Indore and
4,025 from Ujjain.
06. The petitioners alleged that due to the storm and heavy rains
in the Indore Ujjain region power cut at various centres lasting up
to 10 minutes and at some centres up to an hour in Indore and
Ujjain, adequate lighting was unavailable which impaired their
ability to clearly read and mark the OMR sheets thereby affecting
their performance.
07. The petitioners contended that they were made to take the
examination in semi-dark or dim light conditions without any
alternate lighting or power backup being made available which
affected their visibility and affected their ability to read questions
and further contended that the disruptions and lack of proper lights
caused extreme stress to the students that resulted in performance
detriment.
08. The petitioners to substantiate their plea have placed
reliance on contemporaneous news reports, weather bulletins from
the India Meteorological Department, video footage of distressed
examinees and aggrieved parents and the statements of the collector
acknowledging power disruptions and vowing future
improvements. The petitioners have also highlighted that the NTA
failed to collect CCTV footage from the centres which as per its
own guidelines ought to have been preserved and could have
conclusively indicated the actual light condition in the examination
rooms. Several petitioners also relied on their personal performance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
histories to indicate the genuineness of their case and also
submitted the online grievances raised by them through emails and
other forums with NTA seeking relief of re-test.
CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS / NTA
09. On the other hand, the respondents / NTA by filing a
detailed return submitted that although certain centres in Indore
experienced power outages due to a thunderstorm alternative
arrangements such as DG sets and natural light ensured smooth
conduct of the examination in question. The respondents relied on-
field reports from Centre Superintendents, District Administration
and the City Coordinator / observers of NEET asserting that the
examination was conducted smoothly with no material disruption. It
was submitted that DG sets, emergency lights, and inverters were
used in many centres and apart from that sufficient natural light was
available in classrooms even during the outage, hence, there was a
disturbance to the participants.
10. The NTA also placed on record a Statistical Analysis Report
prepared by a Three Members' Expert Committee comprising
professors from Delhi University and IIT, Delhi. The report
compared the number of questions attempted by candidates from
centres affected by power cuts with those from unaffected centres
and concluded with 99% confidence at a 1% significance level that
there was no statistically significant adverse impact on
performance. Further, it was pointed out that the one of top scorer
(AIR Rank - 2) has emerged from one of the allegedly affected
centres and that many petitioners themselves had attempted nearly
all 180 questions which undermines their claims of prejudice.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
11. Respondents contended that the allegations raised involved
disputed facts, not amenable to writ jurisdiction and that re-
conducting the examination would disrupt the national academic
calendar. The NTA also cited a recent Madras High Court judgment
whereby similar petitions were dismissed.
FINDINGS OF THE WRIT COURT
12. The learned Writ Court upon hearing the parties and
perusing the material placed on record has held that the petitioners
have made out exceptional case for judicial interference by the
High Court. The Writ Court observed that it is an admitted fact that
during the NEET (UG) 2025 examination conducted on 04.05.2025,
there was disruption due to severe thunderstorms in Indore and
surrounding regions leading to a power outage in multiple
examination centres. The disruption ranged from 10 minutes to over
an hour and this fact stood corroborated by the reports submitted by
the Collector, Indore and the City Coordinator of NTA. The Writ
Court has also observed that even minimal disruption during a three
hours exam could impair focus and performance regardless of the
number of attempted questions.
13. The Writ Court has also observed that although alternative
lighting arrangements were made such as emergency lights, candles
or natural daylight, but all were not sufficient enough for proper
visibility. The Writ Court observed that the statistical analysis report
by a Three Members' Expert Committee submitted by the NTA
focused narrowly on the number of attempted questions ignoring
the qualitative and psychological impact of the disruption on
candidates' performance in a high-stakes competitive exam and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
such evidence could not outweigh the lived experience of the
affected candidates. The Writ Court also noted the absence of
CCTV footage from affected classrooms despite guidelines
mandating CCTV installation.
14. The Writ Court distinguished the reliance placed by the
NTA on the Division Bench decision of the Court of Judicature at
Madras in the case of S. Sai Priya & Others v/s Union of India &
Others (W.P. No.18359 of 2025) by observing that the said case
involved only five petitions concerning four centres, whereas the
instant matter involved over a hundred petitions from various
centres in Indore and Ujjain.
15. The Writ Court also distinguished the decision of the Apex
court in Aditi & Others v/s National Board of Examination in
Medical Sciences & Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1288 by holding that it dealt with the question of uniformity in two-
shift examinations and did not apply to a case involving disruption
during examination due to unforeseen power outages.
16. The Writ Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court
in Vanshika Yadav v/s Union of India reported in (2024) 9 SCC
743 wherein the Apex Court had upheld the option of a re-test in
cases of exceptional circumstances and allowed a fresh examination
with ranks based solely on the re-test scores.
17. The learned Writ Court has denied the relief of re-test to
those petitioners who filed their writ petitions after the date of the
release of the Provisional Answer Key on 03.06.2025 as they had
not acted diligently and bonafidely and directed that the NTA shall
conduct their re-test of NEET (UG) 2025 examination for only such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
petitioners and declare their results based solely on the re-test
scores who appeared before 03.06.2025. The benefit of the order
was expressly limited to those who had approached the Court
before 03.06.2025 and excluded those who waited their chance and
had filed the petition as an afterthought after the declaration of
Provisional Answer Key. Accordingly, the writ petitions were
allowed with the above directions and against this order, the present
batch of writ appeals have been filed by the NTA and impacted
students impugning the said direction of re-examination and
exclusion of some petitioners.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT(S)
18. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India,
appearing on behalf of the appellants National Testing Agency and
the Union of India assailed the impugned order passed by the
learned Writ Court as manifestly erroneous both on facts and in law.
Learned Solicitor General submitted that the Single Judge had erred
in assuming that the occurrence of a thunderstorm and a consequent
power outage at certain examination centres, which is an admitted
fact for a short duration, had by itself rendered the whole exam of
NEET (UG) 2025 at those centres invalid and require the need to
conduct a re-test.
19. Learned Solicitor General informed us that the NEET (UG)
2025 examination was conducted on 04.05.2025 across 5468
centres in Pan India with 22.76 lakh candidates appearing in a
single shift under a uniform question paper scheme to ensure same
parity and the same level of difficulty in the question paper. In
Indore and Ujjain alone, 31,289 candidates appeared across 58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
centres and out of them only these 78 petitioners constituting a
mere 0.28% of the Indore examinees approached the High Court,
and even amongst them, candidates from 10 of the 49 Indore
centres did not report any grievance.
20. Learned Solicitor General submitted that the NTA had
proactively not as and adversely litigant initiated a detailed
verification process through reports submitted by the Centre
Superintendents, the District Collector of Indore, the NEET City
Coordinator, and other officials. The factual matrix from these
reports was submitted as follows:-
(i) At 10 centres, no power failure occurred.
(ii) At 19 centres, brief outages were effectively managed
through Diesel Generator (DG) sets and emergency lighting
arrangements.
(iii) At 2 centres, there was a 5-10-minute disruption, but
natural daylight and ventilation were sufficient; and
(iv) At 18 centres, the outage lasted about one hour, but the
centres comprised well-constructed school buildings with
large, ventilated classrooms, and the presence of adequate
natural light was verified by the authorities.
21. Learned Solicitor General further submitted that in none of
the centres the examination was abandoned as submitted that the
Collectors in its Report dated 18.05.2025 and the City Coordinators
Audit Report dated 15.05.2025 categorically affirmed that the
examination process was duly completed at each centre without any
material disruption.
22. Learned Solicitor General placed reliance on the Statistical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
Analysis Report prepared by an independent Expert Committee
comprising Prof. Girish Chandra (University of Delhi), Prof. Neeraj
Joshi (IIT Delhi), and Prof. Chandrabhan Yadav (University of
Delhi). The Committee, being neutral and academically competent
analyzed centre-wise performance data and concluded with 99%
confidence at a 1% level of statistical significance that there was no
discernible difference in the number of questions attempted or
scores obtained between students from affected and unaffected
centres.
23. Learned Solicitor General submitted that the average
number of questions attempted across centres ranged between 119
and 127 and that even amongst the petitioners several students
attempted over 170 questions, with 11 students from the impugned
centres scoring above 600 marks one of whom secured All India
Rank 2 and further submitted that this conclusively negated any
allegation of systemic prejudice due to the temporary power
disruption.
24. The Learned Solicitor General submitted that the petitioners
had failed to produce any technical rebuttal to the Committee's
methodology, qualifications or conclusions and that the learned
Judge had erred in relying on speculative premise of the petitioners
that "even 10 minutes of mental distraction could affect
composure" which cannot displace concrete statistical findings.
25. Learned Solicitor General submitted placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Vanshika Yadav (supra), wherein the
Apex Court had upheld the validity of NEET (UG) 2024 despite
allegations of paper leak on the strength of statistical audits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
establishing absence of systemic impact and further submitted that
the learned Writ Court in the present case failed to apply this
binding precedent and erroneously substituted data-backed
evidence with judicial empathy.
26. Learned Solicitor General also addressed the absence of
CCTV footage and submitted that the temporary power outage
naturally rendered the CCTV systems inoperative and that such
absence cannot be treated as adverse material, especially when
corroborative official records, field inspection reports, and
supervisory audits were duly submitted.
27. Learned Solicitor General submitted that the learned Single
Judge direction for re-test is impractical as the NEET (UG) exam is
conducted in a single shift with one question paper to preserve
comparability and fairness. Any deviation from this standard by
conducting a re-test for a select few would destroy the level playing
field and violate the principles of equal treatment and merit-based
selection. Learned S.G. placed reliance on Aditi & Ors. v. National
Board of Examination reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1288
wherein the Supreme Court held that re-tests in high-stakes national
exams should not be ordered absent extraordinary systemic failure
as they introduce arbitrariness and comparability distortions.
28. Learned Solicitor General emphasized that awarding grace
marks was equally unworkable and posed a rhetorical question "If
AIR-2 is also given grace marks, will he become AIR-1 ?'' to
illustrate the unintended consequences of arbitrary grace awards in
a national merit-based competition.
29. The Learned Solicitor General concluded submissions that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
the impugned direction to conduct a re-test would significantly
delay the commencement of this academic session, disrupt the
ongoing counselling process and would also affect lakh of other
candidates who are not party to the proceedings. Learned Solicitor
General submitted other Courts had also not granted similar reliefs
and that the Madras High Court had dismissed a similar petition.
Learned Solicitor General prayed for interference by this Court by
setting aside the impugned order passed by the Writ Court.
30. Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel supported the
submission of the learned Solicitor General and further added that
the learned Writ Court had wrongly relied on the case of Vanishka
Yadav (supra) as the facts of that case were totally different from
the present case and Vanishka Yadav (supra) case involved
allegation of paper leak and wrong question paper being students
which cannot be applied to the present case.
31. Learned Senior Counsel relied on paragraphs - 72 to 74 and
78 of Vanishka Yadav (supra) and submitted that in this case re-test
was allowed after the Expert Committee Report suggested that it is
the appropriate remedy and not grace marks for 1563 students.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT / WRIT PETITIONER
32. Shri Mradul Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents submitted that the impugned judgment does not
call for any interference as it is based on correct reasoning and
proper appreciation of fact by the learned Writ Court. It is further
submitted that the respondents have admitted that there was a
power outage in some of centre which had affected the performance
of the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that even after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
guidelines provided for sufficient power backup to be available, it
was not arranged by the NTA. Learned counsel opposed the
contention of NTA that the OMR sheet were properly blackened
which shows that sufficient light was available. This is totally
misconstrued as the students regularly practiced on the OMR sheet
and they were able to do so in dimmed light also best light was not
sufficient to solve the questions within a limited time.
33. Learned counsel submitted that the NEET (UG)
Examination is a highly technical examination requiring students to
make long calculations which is already difficult to do in the
deemed light. Learned counsel further submitted that in the initial
reply filed by the NTA, the observers of the examination admitted
that there was less light and no natural light in the many centres.
34. Learned counsel further submitted that the statistical
analysis report did not analyze the stress level undergone by the
students during the power outage. Learned counsel submitted that it
is not the case of only 75 students but also of all the students who
were affected by the power outage. Even if one student is affected,
the Supreme Court has granted relief irrespective of the numbers. In
support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Vanshika Yadav
(supra).
35. Shri Nitin Singh Bhati, learned counsel supported the
submission made by Shri Mradul Bhatnagar and in addition
submitted that no level playing field will be established if students
of affected centres and unaffected centres are kept at par without
giving any relief as the students of the affected centres not only lost
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
time during examination hours due to power outage but also had to
under mental stress due to interruption, even if was for a minute or
two.
36. Shri Chinmai Mehta learned counsel submitted that the
power to conduct retest is available with NTA as it can be observed
from the fact that on the direction issued by the Supreme Court, the
NTA had conducted retest in various exams like CUET Exam and
also in the NEET Examination conducted last year. In many cases,
the NTA, on its own, had also conducted a retest. Thus the
contention of the NTA that retest could not be arranged is
unjustified.
37. By refuting the contention of NTA that a maximum number
of questions have been attempted by the students, learned counsel
submits that this contention is inappropriate as in such a situation
the students are in the mindset that it is better to attempt the
questions as many as possible when the negative marking is such
that on four questions being wrong, one mark will be deducted.
38. Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Senior Counsel opposed the
contention of NTA that CCTV footage could not be provided due to
electricity failure as there was no recording in them and submitted
that if the power generators were functioning, then the CCTV
footage would be available which could clear the picture regarding
conditions of the examination hall. Shri Sharan learned Senior
Counsel submitted that there is no difficulty in conducting a re-test
because NTA has another set of question papers of the same
slandered in safe custody. The NTA always prepares two sets of
question papers with the same standard, hence, the second set can
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
be used for a re-test that will give an equal playing level.
39. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that
there was no sufficient power backup as candlelight was provided
which itself shows that there was no sufficient lighting. Learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that preparation levels of students
are different, and some were able to complete the paper early but
they remained unaffected by power outage as was the case of
student attaining AIR Rank - 2. It is further submitted that the
students have burnt the midnight oil and prepared year long and for
many of them, this is the last attempt and due to no fault of their
own, their performance had suffered because of the poor facility
available at the examination centre. Thus, they deserve to be
compensated.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE WRIT APPEAL FILED BY THE
STUDENTS
40. Shri Vivek Sharan, Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal & Shri
Mradul Bhatnagar, learned counsel jointly argued that there is no
difference between the two groups of students and learned Single
Judge had erroneously, on the basis of the cut-off date, denied some
of them from re-test. During the hearing of the petitions before the
Writ Court, no distinction was made between the students who had
filed the petitions before or after 03.06.2025 and those who were
denied re-test were not given a chance to put their case separately.
41. Learned counsel further elaborated that many of the students
first approached NTA through email regarding their grievance and
asking for re-test and thereafter, approached this Court. Hence, the
students should not be discriminated against on this ground alone. It
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
is further submitted that the petitioner as well as all the affected
students should be given the option for re-test. It is further
submitted that the NTA, while conducting the examination had
prepared two sets of question papers having the same level and the
unused second set of question papers having the same level is still
available with the NTA which can be used to conduct the re-test.
42. Learned counsel further submitted that the present case is
also an example of administrative ignorance as the examination
authorities were bound to conduct an audit of the centres to check
whether proper facilities including power backup were available in
case of emergency, however, the same was not properly done which
created the current situation. Shri Mangal, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Inder Pal
Yadav & Others v/s Union of India & Others reported in (1985) 2
SCC 648.
43. In response to the aforesaid submission, Shri Rupesh
Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for NTA submitted that
though power outage is an admitted fact, but the NTA does not have
any rules or guidelines framed to conduct re-test and further added
that no grace marks could be given as it will affect the result of all
the student and would delay the counselling process.
44. While concluding the arguments, the learned Solicitor
General submits that even if the Court orders for re-test or giving
grace marks, it is practically difficult as there is no proper process
or mechanism to identify candidates who should be allowed to
appear in the retest or to give grace marks. There is no specific
parameters, on which the students were or were not affected can be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
differentiated, whereas in the case of Vanshika Yadav (supra), the
Expert Committee had method to identify such students.
45. In reply all the counsel appearing for the writ petitioners
submitted that a chance should be given to the students of affected
centre and it would be their choice to appear or not.
APPRECIATION & CONCLUSION
46. The NTA conducts the NEET (UG) every year for
admission of 108000 for MBBS Course in Government as well as
Private Medical Colleges / Hospitals. NEET is divided into four
subjects viz Physics, Chemistry, Botany & Zoology with 45
questions in total 180 questions. The examination is of objective
type, not subjective with negative marking, meaning thereby, four
marks are awarded for every correct answer, and one mark is
deducted for incorrect answer. The total duration of the Test is 03
hours 25 minutes. This year, 22 lakh students applied for
participation in the NEET from different centres situated in 540
cities. This year 49 centres were allocated to NTA for conducting
the Examination. Admit cards were issued to 2276069 students.
NEET (UG) 2025 was conducted on 04.05.2025 (Sunday) from
2:00 pm to 5:00 pm (IST) in a pen-and-paper mode (OMR Sheet) at
5468 centres in 552 cities across India and 40 cities outside India.
Out of 2276069, 2209318 candidates appeared in the Examination.
The Examination has been conducted in single shift with a single
question paper.
47. It is not in dispute that on 04.05.2025 between 2:00 pm to
5:00 pm, there was heavy rainfall and a thunderstorm in Indore due
to which the power supply was affected. According to the writ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
petitioners, though they attempted all the questions in the allotted
time, but due to the regular power outrage and non-availability of
proper light, they could not perform well. As per the petitioners'
allegation, the local administration on behalf of NTA did not
provide alternate modes of light like generator, inverter etc. As per
the report given by the Collector, Indore to NTA due to bad weather
and a thunderstorm, there was a power failure from 10 minutes to
01 hour 20 minutes in 24 examination centres. In most of the
centres, the supply was restored by alternate mode.
48. After receipt of the complaint, the electricity supply
company immediately restored the electricity supply. The local
administration had made arrangements for alternate modes like
candles, emergency lights, power backup, inverter etc. barring a
few. But it is correct that due to the power failure, a disturbance was
caused to the students who had to attempt 180 questions in 03 hours
25 minutes with concentration. The situation, which occurred
suddenly, was beyond the control of NTA as well as local
administration because normally Monsoon never reaches to eastern
part of Madhya Pradesh in the first week of May, therefore, no one
could anticipate rainfall and thunder in peak summer days.
Suddenly, the weather changed, and heavy storms and rain started,
in fact nobody was prepared for that, therefore, it was unfortunate
for the students that they had to attend the examination during such
unpredicted disturbance.
51. As per the figure given by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned
Solicitor General, out of 49 centres, in 10 centres there was no
power outage, in 19 centres, there was power generator, in 18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
centres though there was a power outage but natural light was
sufficient to do the examination and in 02 centres there was power
outage for less than two minutes. According to Shri Mehta, learned
Solicitor General, after solving the questions, the students were
required to fill the circle of the correct answer in the OMR sheet
and it is apparent from the OMR sheet, that darkens were done
perfectly by the students of 18 + 2 centres which show that there
was sufficient natural light inside the rooms during the period
power supply was obstructed. On average, the students have
attempted 123 questions in all the centres which proves that the
power outage has not played a significant role in the performance of
the candidate in the affected centre. Nothing is on record to show
that any of the participants demanded extra time to compensate for
the loss of time during power outage. 11 candidates in Indore have
obtained 600 marks out of 720 and four candidates are from those
centres which faced the power outage. The second topper of the
country is also from Indore and is from the centre from where most
of the candidates have filed the writ petitions.
52. It is correct that for every child this exam is very important
for his future career, but it is also important to note that out of
27264 candidates, only 70 candidates have filed writ petitions
complaining about disruption due to power outage which is a very
insignificant figure. NTA has tried to explain the average number of
responses in NEET (UG), 2025 is 123 from all the centres in Indore
by way of bar diagrams and the same are reproduced below:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
53. It is clear from the aforesaid that the result and performance
of the writ petitioners were not seriously affected due to bad
weather and power outage for some time.
54. The Writ Court and counsel appearing for both sides
appellant and respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment
delivered in the case of Vanshika Yadav (supra). Learned Senior
Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that in the case of
Vanshika Yadav (supra), the Apex Court directed for re-test for
1563 candidates who were initially awarded compensatory marks.
Therefore, the Writ Court has rightly directed to conduct a re-test
for these writ petitioners which is permissible in exceptional
circumstances.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
56. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General also submitted
that the case of Vanshika Yadav (supra) was related to NEET (UG)
2024 where question paper was leaked and illegally circulated
amongst students before the conduct of examination in Hazaribagh
(Jharkhand) and Patna (Bihar). In that case, the NTA identified
1563 candidates, who did not get 03 hours 25 minutes to answer the
question paper and suggested to the Court to take a re-test as per
recommendations of the Special Ccommittee. But in the present
case, there is no identification of candidates who were affected by
this examination. Before the Writ Court only 78 writ petitions were
filed and the Writ Court denied the relief to those petitioners who
approached after the cut-off date i.e. 03.06.2025. Apart from that,
more than 5000 students appeared in the centres where there was a
power outage. Some of them have secured qualifying marks and
one has secured AIR Rank - 2. All the students are not willing to
appear in the re-test.
57. In our opinion, in the case of Vanshika Yadav (supra), the
Apex Court has explained the conditions for issuance direction i.e.
litmus test for a re-test, certain aspects such as; whether the alleged
breach took place at a systemic level; secondly whether the breach
was of a nature which affected the integrity of the entire
examination process; and thirdly whether it was possible to
segregate the beneficiaries of the fraud from the untainted students.
Therefore, where the entire integrity of the examination was at
stake, that could be a consideration for re-testing the entire
examination. In fact, the decision to re-test for 1563 students was
taken by way of an interim order dated 13.06.2024 by the Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
Court. Initially, the NTA constituted a Grievance Redressal
Committee which recommended awarding compensatory marks to
those students who were not allowed to utilize full time i.e. 03
hours and 20 minutes, but were granted lessor time. This was
objected to by some of the petitioners before the High Court,
thereafter, the NTA constituted another Committee to reconsider the
issue which gave its recommendation to conduct the re-test. The
said recommendation was placed before the Apex Court and the
same was accepted by the Apex Court by way of an interim order
dated 13.06.2024, which has been made absolute in the final order
in the case of Vanshika Yadav (supra) is the consent order. The NTA
came up with a proposal of re-testing on the basis of the
recommendation of the Committee and accepted by the apex court.
58. In the present case also before taking any decision, the NTA
constituted a committee of three independent professors from IIT,
Delhi and the said Expert Committee has neither recommended for
grant of extra marks nor re-testing. Therefore, NTA has not
contested this case as an adversary litigant as rightly said by Shri
Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India. The NTA
constituted a Three Members' Committee, all the data was provided
to the Committee and thereafter, the Committee recommended that
it was not a fit case of awarding compensatory marks or re-testing.
59. So far the case of Aditi (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court
has rejected the proposal of the petitioner to conduct the
examination in two shifts by holding that holding of examination in
two shifts would invariably enable arbitrariness and would not
entail at-par evaluation of the comparative merit of the candidates
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
who take the examinations. No two question papers can ever said to
be at an identical level of difficulty or ease. Paragraph - 10 of the
aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-
''10. Holding the examination in two shifts would invariably
enable arbitrariness and would not entail an at-par
evaluation of the comparative merit of the candidates who
take the examinations. No two question papers can ever be
said to be at an identical level of difficulty or ease. There is
bound to be a variation. Normalization may be applied and
adopted in exceptional circumstances but not in a routine
manner year after year, especially when the number of
candidates is not unduly large, as is the case presently.''
[Emphasis Supplied]
60. Therefore, the above reasoning also answers the arguments
of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that the
NTA prepares the two sets of question papers and a re-test can be
conducted from the second set of question papers. Second sets are
always prepared in each and every examination in order to be used
in case the first set of question papers is leaked, destroyed, lost etc.
but in one examination, both sets of question papers cannot be used,
either entire examination will be held with one set of question paper
or another set of question paper.
61. As said by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General, the NTA
is not taking up this matter as an adversary litigant, before taking
any decision against the student a matter was examined by
constituting a committee of experts and later on rejected the prayer
for re-test as per opinion given by the such committee. In view of
the above, we do not find that it is a fit case for a re-test of NEET
(UG) 2005. Hence, all the Writ Appeals filed by the National
Testing Agency stand allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Writ Court dated 23.06.2025 is hereby set aside, all the writ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
petitions are dismissed.
62. Before parting with this case, we would like to explain our
concern about the plight of the students. It is correct that writ
petitioners prepared a whole year before appearing in this
examination which is a turning point in their career. They must have
taken coaching from higher and expensive caching centres along
with their regular studies of Higher Secondary School
Examinations. Therefore, if they had to face this type of situation,
they and their family members may feel in their entire life that
because of this incident, they could not reach a place they dreamed
in life. It is also a fact to accept that more than 22 lakh students
appeared for limited seats of 01 lakh, therefore, the percentage of
selection is very low. These students who are feeling that they could
not perform well because of power outage in their examination
centres, but the other 21 lakh students who appeared in good
condition remained unsuccessful. There is no guarantee that even if
the re-test is done in all conducive circumstances or atmosphere,
they will secure higher marks than this examination.
63. In order to avoid such a situation in future, NTA as well as
the local administration of each district are directed to ensure that
all the measures, especially the continuity of power supply by way
of regular supply or by way of alternate mode of supply, proper
sitting arrangement, availability of air and cooling etc. It is the
responsibility of the local administration to prepare the list of
centres which can be used for these types of important
examinations by any of the agencies.
64. Another set of writ appeals are filed by those students who
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17837
W.A. No.1842 of 2025 & Others
approached the Writ Court after 03.06.2025. The Writ Court
thought that these students did not approach the Court immediately
after participation in the examination, they checked their score after
the release of Provisional Answer Key, and they approached. It
makes no difference whether the writ petitioners approached earlier
or later on during the pendency of the writ petitions, but the issue is
that all the writ petitioners are similarly placed. They all
complained of similar problems which they faced in the
examination. The only difference is that they checked their results
after the release of the Provisional Answer Key and found that they
could not perform well because of this power outage. Some of the
writ petitioners, before approaching the Writ Court, made a
complaint to the local administration and NTA for re-testing and
waiting for the response. Therefore, they are also at par with those
who have immediately approached this Court and have been
granted the relief. Since the writ appeals filed by the NTA are
allowed, therefore, in view of the above discussion no relief can be
granted to these appellants,.
65. In view of the above, Writ Appeals filed by students are
hereby dismissed.
Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the connected writ
appeals also.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
