NTA said timelines are ‘sacrosanct’, but Delhi High Court rescues student after her CUET UG 2026 fee bounced back

“To my mind, the petitioner has a prima facie case as in the present factual matrix, the petitioner is not blocking a seat of any candidate nor is getting any unfair advantage over any student. At this preliminary stage of the process, the oversight/ the mistake of the petitioner will only cause administrative disturbance, if any, to respondent No. 2/NTA,” the May 13 order read. 

Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that the bank statement also showed that the said payment was refunded on January 29.

‘She completed the registration’

• The court noted that the bank statement of the petitioner’s father, through which the payment was made, showed that the payment was made by the petitioner on January 27, and an amount of Rs 1,800 was also deducted.
• However, the court noted that the bank statement also showed that the said payment was refunded on January 29.
• The court pointed out that the fact remains that the petitioner completed the registration from her side by making the payment in due time.
• The court further added that the petitioner should have been cautious with respect to her application form and revisited the portal to confirm the registration.
• The Delhi High Court, though, added that the petitioner did pay the application form fee within the timeline, which cannot be ignored, and the bounce back of the said amount cannot be said to be her fault.
• The high court allowed the petition and directed the authority to take every necessary step to facilitate the petitioner’s participation in the CUET UG exam. 

Money bounced back

It was placed on record that the petitioner is a minor and is represented through her father and natural guardian. The petitioner applied to get admission in undergraduate courses in Indian universities. 

It was noted by the court that the CUET UG is to be conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) from May 11 to May 31, and the online application for its registration was initially open from Jan 3 to Jan 30, which was subsequently extended from February 23 to 26. 

It was claimed that the minor applied for the registration on January 27 and completed the application process and paid the requisite fee of Rs 1,800, and as per the petitioner, at the time of payment, the portal reflected a “payment successful” and no message, alert or email was sent. 

It was further added that on April 5,  the minor logged into the portal and found out that her application was marked as incomplete due to non-payment. 

On verification, it was found out that the payment amount of Rs 1,800 got bounced back to the account on January 29 and went unnoticed by the minor and her father due to being a small amount. 

Consequently, the minor made a representation on April 8 to the authority concerned seeking resolution of her application and also informed NTA about the submission of her application and the technical glitch. She allegedly requested to allow her to complete the application and repay the fee amount. However, the same was not responded to.

Aggrieved by the same, she filed this plea in the Delhi High Court. 

Personal hardship can’t be considered 

Appearing for the NTA, advocate Vikrant Nilesh Goyal opposed the petition and stated that the timelines are sacrosanct and are meant to be scrupulously followed, and the timelines given in the information bulletin are peremptory norms. 

He added that the minor had ample opportunity to complete the application and submit the fees during the extension periods, and her fault cannot be construed as a breach of fundamental rights. 

It was further added that in the entrance examination, like CUET UG, personal hardship or abstract considerations of sympathies should not be considered.