The Delhi High Court on September 22, 2025, dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging certain alleged irregularities in JEE(Main)–2025, conducted by respondent no.1/NTA (National Testing Agency). Justice Vikas Mahajan after careful consideration of the forensic reports and official records, found the petitioners’ claims unsubstantiated and imposed costs of Rs.30,000 each for filing proceedings with unclean hands.
The case was originally filed by three petitioners, but petitioner no.3 chose not to pursue the matter further, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 14.05.2025. The remaining two, including petitioner no.1, contended that her Session I score, initially shown as 98.6% on 11.02.2025, was later reduced to 25.5% in the overall result of 18.04.2025, with Session II recorded at 49.8% percentile. She also alleged that the response sheet obtained later did not match the one downloaded initially. Similarly, petitioner no.2 claimed that his Session I score dropped from 94.81% to 80.4% in the final result and raised further grievances regarding Session II, including irregularities in attempted and correctly answered questions, leading to a lower score than deserved. Therefore, upon a joint request, the Court, by order dated 14.05.2025, referred four technical questions to CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory) regarding the authenticity and tampering of the petitioners’ scorecards and access to result emails. CFSL reported inability to comply due to lack of necessary facilities, and the matter was then referred to NCFL (National Cyber Forensic Laboratory), which examined the digital evidence and submitted its report on 13.06.2025, taken on record by the Court on 03.07.2025. The petitioners argued that the NCFL (National Cyber Forensic Laboratory) report was flawed since NTA did not provide server-side data, and gaps in browser history did not prove intentional manipulation. The respondent NTA countered by stating that the petitioners had tampered with their scorecards, citing discrepancies in metadata, missing browser logs, and audit trails.
The Court noted that the QR codes on the petitioners’ scorecards corresponded with the official NTA records and that the percentiles they claimed were mathematically impossible. The NCFL report further indicated that petitioner no.1 had accessed and manipulated the response sheet using Chrome DevTools. After evaluating the evidence, the Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish the authenticity of their claimed scorecards and that Article 226 does not empower it to resolve intricate factual disputes without credible evidence and proof of bona fides. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, imposed costs totaling Rs. 60,000 on both petitioners to be deposited into the “Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025,” and disposed of all pending applications.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners – Advs -Mr. Deepak Jain, Ms. Jaspreet Aulakh, Ms. Anoushka Singh, Ms. Dashapreet Kaur, Mr. Sajal Gupta, Mr. Arsh Raina and Mr Devender
For the Respondents- Mr. Sanjay Khanna, SC for NTA with Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Ms. Vilakshana Dayma, Ms. Pankhuri Srivastava and Ms. Alekshendra Sharma, Advs. for NTA. Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Harshita Chaturvedi, Advs. withExperts Mr. S. Shree Vishnoo and Mr. Subodh S. for NCFL. Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC with Mr. Animesh Rastogi and Mr. Rajat Dubey, Advs. for R-2/UOI and R 3/NIC
