Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi High Court
Article 14 Of Constitution Can’t Be Applied To Compare Persons Violating Exam Rules: Delhi High Court Dismisses CUET Candidate’s Appeal
|The Appeal before the Delhi High Court was filed by the appellant student under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, against the judgment of a Single Judge Bench.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal of a CUET candidate who was unable to give the Common University Entrance Test (UG) Exam as she reached the examination centre late. The High Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be applied to compare persons violating the rules of the examination.
The Appeal before the High Court was filed by the appellant student under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against the judgment of a Single Judge Bench.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said, “Coming to the argument made by the Appellant that there would be discrimination as there may not be uniform implementation of the instructions in the admit card as also the information bulletin, such discrimination cannot be considered as a valid ground to interfere, inasmuch as, all students who violate the gate closing time, would be acting contrary to the instructions. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be applied to compare persons violating the rules of the examination.”
Advocate Vinayak Goel represented the Appellant while Standing Counsel Sanjay Khanna represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Appellant, in this case, was unable to give the Common University Entrance Test (UG) Exam (CUET) being conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) as she reached the examination centre late at about 8:36 a.m. and the gates had already been closed. The invigilators/supervision personnel thus, did not allow the Appellant to enter the examination centre. She missed the three exams scheduled for the said date i.e. May 13, 2025. A writ petition was thereafter filed by the Appellant before the Single Judge but the same was dismissed.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there may be hundreds of students, who may have reached the examination centres late and an exception cannot be created in favor of the Appellant. “Moreover, there are only three-four days of the exams which are left now, and in such circumstances, the NTA cannot be expected to now create a separate schedule or slot for the Appellant to enable her to take the examinations in the specific subjects which she missed out on 13th May, 2025”, it said.
Highlighting the importance of CUET Examination, the Bench said, “The CUET UG examination is an exam where more than 13.54 lacs students from across the country appear. If exceptions are made, and discipline is not followed in such an exam, the timely conduct of the exam, the timely announcement of results and timely admission to colleges and Universities is all likely to be jeopardised and there would be a cascading effect. In such matters, the interference by the Court should be the least.”
Coming to the argument made by the Appellant that there would be discrimination as there may not be uniform implementation of the instructions in the admit card as also the information bulletin, the Bench stated that such discrimination cannot be considered as a valid ground to interfere, inasmuch as, all students who violate the gate closing time, would be acting contrary to the instructions. “Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be applied to compare persons violating the rules of the examination”, it said while also adding, “When students act contrary to the instructions of any given examination, such students cannot argue, inter se, discrimination in the opinion of this Court. Therefore, the ld. Single Judge’s view that a lenient view cannot be taken in such matters does not warrant any interference. In the conduct of such a large-scale examination, leniency would lead to chaos and, therefore, the discipline of the examination ought to be maintained.”
As per the Bench, NTA has already adopted the least intrusive method by giving a window of 1 ½ hours for a student to enter the examination centre. It is after the 1 ½ hours’ time between 07:00 a.m. to 08:30 a.m. is over, that the gates are closed. The Bench was also informed that the appellant had applied for the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University entrance examinations, which is also to be conducted in Delhi.
In view of facts and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ms Sadhana Yadav v. Union of India & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4823-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Vinayak Goel, Alexander Mathai Paikaday
Respondent: Standing Counsel Sanjay Khanna, Advocates Pragya Bhushan, Tarandeep Singh, Vilakshana Dayma