Sympathy Or Possibility Of Academic Loss Cannot Substitute Eligibility Requirement: Delhi High Court Dismisses JEE Aspirant's Plea For Supernumerary IIT Seat
The Court said that the NTA's audit log and official records take precedence absent manifest technical error; declined to enter disputed questions on evaluation, audit-log discrepancies and percentile computation.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that sympathy or the possibility of an academic loss cannot substitute for satisfaction of the eligibility requirements prescribed for admission to the Indian Institutes of Technology. Dismissing the petition of a JEE aspirant who sought a supernumerary seat on the strength of her JEE (Main) 2025 result, the Court observed that the IIT admission framework is merit-based, with criteria prescribed in advance and applied uniformly, and must be followed to maintain certainty and parity.
The Court held that disputes over audit logs, response sheets and percentile computation are disputed questions of fact, which a writ court will not examine without cogent material showing demonstrable error or arbitrariness. It also held that the power to mould relief presupposes a finding that the loss was caused by official error, and that the petition was not barred by res judicata.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “…unless the underlying errors are first established, there can be no basis for treating the petitioner as having satisfied the prescribed eligibility condition. The Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner seeks preservation of an academic opportunity which, according to her, was lost on account of circumstances beyond her control. However, sympathy or the possibility of an academic loss cannot substitute for satisfaction of the eligibility requirements prescribed for admission to the IITs. The Court is required to apply the governing framework uniformly, unless a legally sustainable basis for deviation therefrom is established”.
Advocate Gunjan Sinha Jain appeared for the petitioner and Puja S. Kalra, CGSC, Senior Advocate Arjun Mitra appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, Ashi Agarwal, completed Class XII in 2024 and, after a drop year, appeared in JEE (Main) 2025 Session-I on January 28, 2025. She alleged wrong evaluation of five questions, and said she was denied entry to Session-II on April 02, 2025 after falling ill, though she reached the centre around 8:25 a.m. She secured a percentile of 85.9241340 and claimed she would otherwise have qualified for JEE (Advanced) 2025.
Her earlier petition, was disposed of on May 12, 2026 with a direction that the Organising Chairman, JEE (Advanced) 2026, IIT Roorkee, decide it as a representation. She was not permitted to sit JEE (Advanced) 2026 under Criterion A4, and on May 18, 2026 the Chairman rejected her representation.
Subsequent to which, interim relief was declined on May 29, 2026, and that finding attained finality after a challenge before the Supreme Court. The respondents pleaded res judicata, want of territorial jurisdiction and that the petition had become infructuous.
The Court rejected the territorial objection and the plea of res judicata, since the earlier order had not adjudicated the merits.
On merits, it declined to enter the disputed questions on evaluation, audit logs and the hypothetical percentile, and found the relief rested on a chain of contingencies. Criterion A4 requires a first Class XII appearance in 2025 or 2026, and the petitioner first appeared in 2024. Eligibility for JEE (Advanced) 2025, the Court said, creates no right to appear in 2026, and the criterion confers no discretion to relax.
“…the petitioner appeared only in JEE (Main) 2025 and was unable to secure the requisite cut-off for JEE (Advanced). The said examination cycle has since concluded, and the academic year in question has already progressed by one year. The petitioner was ineligible to participate in JEE (Advanced) 2026. In these circumstances, the petitioner now seeks admission to a seat in the 2026 academic session on the basis of the result of an examination undertaken in 2025. In my view, such a relief cannot be granted, as the result of JEE (Main) 2025 cannot form the basis for admission to the subsequent academic session in 2026”, the Bench said.
“In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot undertake such a roving or fact-intensive examination, particularly in matters concerning the technical evaluation of an entrance examination, in the absence of cogent material establishing a demonstrable error or arbitrariness on the part of the examining authority. The mere fact that the petitioner disputes the computation undertaken by the NTA, including the basis on which the hypothetical percentile was arrived at, would not warrant this Court substituting its own assessment for that of the expert examining body. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to enter into the aforesaid disputed questions concerning the computation of marks, or the hypothetical percentile calculated by the NTA”, the Bench noted.
Cause Title: Ashi Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8630)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Gunjan Sinha Jain, Omar Hoda, Uday Bhatia, Aviral Jain and Abhinav Chakrabarty, Advocates.
Respondent: Puja S. Kalra, CGSC, Sanjay Khanna (SC), Pragya Bhushan, Naman Dwivedi, Saurabh Pandey, Jaya Choudhary and Meemansa Dixit, Arjun Mitra, Senior Advocate, Jayanti Jha, Advocates.