Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an IIT aspirant, appeared for two writ petitions arising from his participation in the JEE (Mains) 2025 examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). In WP No. 3649 of 2025, he sought a direction to NTA to issue a corrected scorecard showing a percentile of 99.5193354 instead of the displayed 83.3493354, claiming that his originally downloaded scorecard on 11.02.2025 briefly reflected the higher percentile before changing. He also sought an update of his rank. In WP No. 5574 of 2025, filed after appearing for the second session, he additionally sought deletion of the 'UFM' (unfair means) remark and the debarment for 2025-26 and 2026-27, along with permission to register for JEE (Advanced) 2025. The petitioner alleged that he had 54 correct answers, 9 wrong, and 12 unattempted, thus securing 207 out of 300 marks, which should have yielded the higher percentile. The NTA opposed the petitions, contending that the scorecard with 99.5193354 was fabricated and not downloaded from its website; the document conspicuously bore a 'Sample Result' watermark, and no such practice existed. The NTA produced a question-wise chart showing discrepancies between the petitioner's claimed answers and the official answer key. It invoked clause 5.5.1(h)&(r) of the JEE (Mains) 2025 Information Bulletin and the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. Respondent IIT Kanpur, organizing JEE Advanced, argued that even if the petitioner had sufficient marks, the UFM status disqualified him under the applicable rules. The court, after considering rival submissions, declined to interfere. It noted that the scorecard relied on by the petitioner had suspicious time stamps and failed to pass a QR code verification test conducted by the court itself; scanning the QR code revealed a percentile of only 83.3493354, not 99.5193354. The court held that the dispute raised involved dense factual questions which a writ court cannot adjudicate, and assessing individual marks is best left to experts. It placed reliance on the Delhi High Court's decisions in Vibhuti Negi v. National Testing Agency and Selishia Mohandas v. Union of India, the latter citing the presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the court refused to issue any mandamus for correction of the scorecard or permission to appear for JEE Advanced. However, noting the petitioner's young age and educational stakes, the court granted liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings or file a representation to challenge the debarment, with all contentions on merits kept open. Both writ petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Examination Results - Disputed Facts - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner claimed discrepancy in scorecard and sought correction - Court found that the scorecard relied on had "Sample Result" endorsement and failed QR code verification - Held that writ court should not enter dense factual thicket of disputed questions, no interference warranted (Paras 10-12). B) Education Law - Examination Results - QR Code Verification - Not mentioned - Court verified QR code on petitioner's scorecard pdf and found it showed his percentile as 83.34 instead of 99.51 as claimed - Held that QR code verifiable scorecard establishes official record and puts to rest the dispute (Para 11). C) Evidence - Presumption of Regularity - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114 - Court referred to precedent Selishia Mohandas v. Union of India which relied on Section 114 to presume correctness of NTA records - Held that similar presumption applies here (Para 13). D) Education Law - Debarment for Unfair Means - JEE (Mains) 2025 Information Bulletin, Clause 5.5.1(h)&(r) - Petitioner debarred for 2025-26 and 2026-27 with UFM endorsement - Court granted liberty to challenge debarment or seek reconsideration, with contentions kept open (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to direction for corrected scorecard and permission to appear for JEE Advanced; whether the debarment is justified.
Final Decision
The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction, finding the scorecard relied upon by petitioner was suspicious, failed QR verification, and involved disputed facts. It granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the debarment by appropriate proceedings or representation. Both writ petitions disposed of with no costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Writ court should not enter into dense factual thicket
- QR code verification serves to confirm authenticity
- Presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 in favour of official records
- Disputed questions of fact are not amenable to writ jurisdiction
- Courts should not interfere in assessment of marks by expert bodies
