"No Such Direction Can Be Issued Unless An Exceptional Case Is Made Out": Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea To Reopen NEET–UG 2025 Application Window
The Court noted that the Petitioner, during the course of arguments, admitted that she was unable to fill out the online form or upload the required documents as she did not possess them when the application portal was open.
The Gujarat High Court refused to entertain a student’s plea for reopening the NEET – UG 2025 application window and held that the inability to apply due to lack of documents did not create any right to seek reopening of the portal. The Court further held that no such direction could be issued unless an exceptional case is made out, which the Petitioner had failed to establish.
A Single Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai observed, “…merely because the petitioner could not submit her application online, for want of relevant documents, the same would not create any right in favour of the petitioner to seek a direction against the respondents to open the window / portal so that she can submit here application, online. No such direction can be issued in favour of a person, unless he / she makes out an exceptional case for so doing.”
The Court added, “…the petitioner failed to make out an exceptional case, I do not see any reason to even issue notice and to entertain this matter and in fact, this petition deserves to be dismissed.”
Advocate Brijesh K Ramanuj represented the Petitioner, while Advocate KV Shelat appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner approached the High Court praying that the window for applying for registration for NEET (UG) – 2025 be reopened, on the ground that the Petitioner could not upload the necessary documents, as she was not in possession of the same at the relevant point of time.
Direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to extend the NEET – UG 2025 application deadline for 2–3 days to allow affected students to complete registration.
The Petitioner submitted that there were some technical glitches on the server as well and therefore, she was unable to upload the relevant documents on the portal and prayed that her petition be allowed.
Respondent No.1 submitted that the issue of allowing candidates to participate in the NEET – UG 2025 examination, on the ground that they failed to submit the online application form, was considered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, in the case of Namrata Sanjay Sarkate v. Union of India (2025). It was further submitted that the registration process for NEET – UG 2025 had already concluded on March 7, 2025, and prior to the closure, two public notices were issued, informing all stakeholders, including the present petitioner, to complete the registration by submitting the application form online.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the window for making the online application for registration in NEET – UG 2025 had already been closed on March 7, 2025, and therefore, even if the grounds raised by the Petitioner were believed to be absolutely true, then also, the fact remains that the Petitioner failed to submit her application online, at the relevant point of time, for want of necessary documents.
The Court stated, “Further, merely because the petitioner could not submit her application online, for want of relevant documents, the same would not create any right in favour of the petitioner to seek a direction against the respondents to open the window / portal so that she can submit here application, online. No such direction can be issued in favour of a person, unless he / she makes out an exceptional case for so doing.”
The Bench adverted to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate v. Union of India & Anr. (2025) wherein it had been held that re-opening of the window would hypothetically result in facilitating some malpractice, as expressed by the Supreme Court, therefore, the window could not be reopened only to enable the Petitioner to participate.
The Court observed that the Petitioner had failed to make out an exceptional case, and in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate (supra), the Court was not inclined to entertain the matter.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Bharvad Meghankaben Nareshbhai v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. (R/Special Civil Application No. 4049 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Brijesh K Ramanuj
Respondents: Advocates Harsheel D Shukla, KV Shelat, Pradip D Bhate, Vikas V Nair
