© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) appeal challenging a single judge’s order that directed a re-test of NEET UG 2025 for candidates who faced a power outage at examination centres in Indore and Ujjain, according to Live Law.
NEET UG 2025 Counselling Schedule Out: Registration begins on July 21 at mcc.nic.in
A division bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi heard arguments from both sides before reserving the order. The Court had earlier stayed the single-judge ruling. The bench orally acknowledged the mental stress caused to students due to the disruption, however expressed concern over the practicality of a re-exam. “We understand the students’ plight… but out of 22 lakh candidates, only a few were affected. Everyone cannot be selected. Hard luck, bad luck,” the bench remarked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the NTA, submitted that an independent committee comprising professors from IIT-Delhi and other universities had found no significant performance difference between affected and unaffected centres. He argued that the exam could continue due to the availability of natural light and diesel generators at some centres. He opposed the re-test plea, calling it a “second bite at the cherry,” and warned that a retest would delay the entire academic calendar.
He also opposed awarding grace marks, stating there is no clear method to determine who should receive them. He cited examples of high scorers from the affected centres, including a candidate who secured AIR 2, to argue that performance was not uniformly hindered.
Advocates representing the students, however, maintained that light was insufficient, candlelight had to be used, and no power backup was provided, which is unacceptable in 2025. They emphasised that even a few affected candidates have the right to relief and cited previous court rulings in support. They sought a re-exam only for the genuinely affected students, not the entire centre.
The case stems from a June 30 order by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, who noted that the affected candidates were put at a disadvantage through no fault of their own, warranting judicial interference under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court will now decide whether exceptional circumstances merit a limited re-exam.
