AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22525 of 2026, who appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) (NEET-UG), 2026 re-examination conducted by the 1st respondent National Testing Agency, on 21.06.2026, has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1985, challenging the judgment dated 07.07.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent National Testing Agency to place before its Subject Expert Committee ‘six challenge documents’ in respect of question Nos.52, 61, 67, 102, 150, and 174 (Test Booklet Code 80) transmitted by the petitioner through Ext.P8 e-mail dated 28.06.2026, and to evaluate the challenge made by the petitioner based on those documentary records, together with her recorded text remarks, before the finalisation of answer key for NEET (UG) 2026 re-examination; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent National Testing Agency to publish the final answer key for NEET (UG) 2026 re-examination with the same interval provided for challenging the provisional answers, i.e., three days, with the last day compulsorily being a working day, between the publication of the final answer key and the declaration of the result; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent National Testing Agency to preserve all server logs, access logs and audit records relating to the petitioner’s portal session on 28.06.2026, between approximately 19:40 IST and 20:00 IST.
In W.P.(C)No.22525 of 2026, the learned Standing Counsel for the National Testing Agency has filed a statement dated 06.07.2026, on behalf of the 1st respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) Public Notice dated 25.06.2026.
On 07.07.2026, when W.P.(C)No.22525 of 2026 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge disposed of the same with the observations contained therein; however, declining the reliefs sought for. Paragraphs 5 to 7 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;
“5.The main grievance of the petitioner was that the documents supporting the six challenges raised by her had not been received by the first respondent due to a technical lockout and consequential deletion. The statement filed on behalf of the first respondent reveals that such an allegation is incorrect, as the first respondent had received all the supporting documents for the six challenges raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the said grievance raised by the petitioner does not subsist.
6.As far as the relief regarding publication of the final answer key three days prior to the declaration of the results is concerned, those are matters for the respondents to determine. No specific timelines can be stipulated, as the final answer key will be published only after the subject expert committee verifies the challenges raised, against the provisional answer key. Once the final answer key is published, there cannot be any further challenge. Public notice, produced as Annexure R1(a), itself stipulates that, no further challenge shall be accepted after the answer key is published. Hence, no purpose will be achieved by publishing the final answer key three days in advance.
7.The conduct of an examination, being in the realm of an academic exercise, the scope of challenge through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. Courts are not subject experts to verify the correctness or otherwise of any challenge raised by a candidate against an answer key. Therefore, once a challenge raised by the candidate against the provisional answer key is considered by the subject expert committee and the final answer key is published, the scope for further challenge is extremely limited. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot be compelled to publish the final answer key three days before the results are declared. Such a timeline would have a prejudicial effect to other students, who are awaiting the results. In such circumstances, relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.”
Challenging the judgment dated 07.07.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.22525 of 2026, the appellant-petitioner is before this Court in this intra-court appeal.
Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for National Testing Agency for the 1st respondent. We also heard arguments of the learned Central Government Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would contend that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error, while declining the reliefs sought for in the writ petition regarding the publication of the final answer key of NEET (UG) examinations, at least three days before the declaration of results, so as to enable the candidates to raise challenge against the final answer key. The learned Single Judge ought not to have declined the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, stating the limited scope of judicial review over academic matters. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants interference in this writ appeal.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent National Testing Agency would contend that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In support of the said contention, the learned Standing Counsel would place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [(1983) 4 SCC 309] and Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [(2018) 2 SCC 357].
The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted in the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.22525 of 2026, whereby the learned Single Judge declined the reliefs sought for in that writ petition to place before the Subject Expert Committee of the 1st respondent National Testing Agency, ‘six challenge documents’ in respect of question Nos.52, 61, 67, 102, 150, and 174 (Test Booklet Code 80) submitted by the appellant-petitioner, through Ext.P8 e-mail dated 28.06.2026, and to evaluate her challenge on the final answer key for NEET (UG) 2026 re-examination; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent National Testing Agency to publish the final answer key of NEET (UG) examination, at least three days before the declaration of results, so as to enable the candidates to raise challenge against the final answer key.
In the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2026 in W.P.(C)No.22525 of 2026, the learned Single Judge noticed that once the final answer key of NEET (UG) examination is published, there cannot be any further challenge. In Annexure R1(a) public notice dated 25.06.2026, it is specifically provided that no further challenge shall be accepted after the final answer key is published. Hence, no purpose will be served by publishing the final answer key three days in advance of the declaration of the results. The learned Single Judge, while declining the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, observed that the conduct of an examination, being in the realm of an academic exercise, the scope of challenge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The courts are not subject experts to verify the correctness or otherwise of any challenge raised by a candidate against the answer key. Therefore, once the challenge raised by the candidate against the provisional answer key is considered by the Subject Experts Committee of the 1st respondent National Testing Agency and the final answer key is published, the scope for further challenge is extremely limited.
In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [(1983) 4 SCC 309], a decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent National Testing Agency, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, held that the answer key should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong. It should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, i.e., it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard the answer key as correct.
In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [(2018) 2 SCC 357], another decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent National Testing Agency, the Apex Court, after referring to the law laid down in the earlier decision in Samir Gupta [(1983) 4 SCC 309], held that the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the answer key is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of an answer key.
As held by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27], in academic matters involving technical expertise, courts should not ordinarily interfere. Courts should adopt a practical and contextual approach in such matters.
In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726], the Apex Court held that interference of courts in academic/educational matters is not proper, except where interpretation of a statutory provision or of the law is involved.
In Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh [(2010) 8 SCC 372], the Apex Court held that the courts have a very limited role, particularly, when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate their constraints and limitations in academic matters.
In the instant case, as already noticed hereinbefore, once the final answer key of NEET (UG) examination is published, there cannot be any further challenge. In Annexure R1(a) public notice dated 25.06.2026, it is specifically provided that no further challenge shall be accepted after the final answer key is published. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the constitutional courts have a very limited role in a challenge made against the answer key, particularly, when no case of mala fides has been alleged against the subject experts, who considered the challenge raised by the candidates against the provisional answer key. This Court, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the subject experts on the challenge raised by the candidates against the provisional answer key. This Court, in exercise of such jurisdiction, cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent National Testing Agency to provide an opportunity to the candidates to raise a challenge against the final answer key, before the declaration of results of NEET (UG) examination, contrary to the requirements of Annexure R1(a) public notice dated 25.06.2026.
In the above circumstances, we find no merits in this writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, declining any interference on the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.07.2026 in W.P.(C)No.22525 of 2026.