The Delhi High Court has allowed a writ petition challenging errors in the answer key of the UGC-NET December 2025 examination (History, Subject Code-06), holding that the petitioner was wrongly denied marks for one of the questions due to an apparent flaw in the options provided.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking judicial review of the answer key to four questions ie. Question Nos. 61, 62, 114 and 124, after the petitioner objected to the provisional answer key released on 14 January 2026. The examination, conducted pursuant to a notification dated 7 October 2025, comprised 150 questions carrying two marks each, with no negative marking. The petitioner secured 214 out of 300 marks.
During the hearing, University Grants Commission informed the Court that it had already constituted an Expert Committee to evaluate objections raised by the petitioner and other similarly placed candidates. However, the Court closely examined Question No. 114 and found that Option Nos. 2 and 3 were identical in substance and both constituted correct answers.
The Court held that in such a situation, the petitioner could not have been deprived of two marks and that no expert committee was required to examine Question No. 114, as the error was self-evident on the face of the record. Accepting the petitioner’s submission that award of two additional marks would make him eligible for the Junior Research Fellowship (JRF), the Court directed the respondents to award two marks for Question No. 114 and grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.
As regards the remaining disputed questions i.e. Question Nos. 61, 62 and 124, the Court left the issue open to be decided by the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with limited relief in favour of the petitioner
In a connected set of applications filed by similarly situated candidates seeking impleadment, the Court directed that their pleas be treated as representations. The UGC was instructed to have the Expert Committee examine their objections, grant them a hearing, and pass a reasoned decision within four weeks, while clarifying that the legal rights of all parties remain open.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Jain Sr. Adv. with, Mr. Sidhant Goel Adv. Mr. Mohit Goel Adv. Deepankar Mishra Adv. Ms. Kratvi Kawdia Adv Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Mr. Nishant Nain, Mr. Vashu Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Khanna SC with Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Ms. Vilakshana Dayma, Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Ms. Anshu Kumari, Advs.
