Rajasthan High Court Saves IIT-JEE Aspirant’s Career After NTA Ban Over Cheating Allegation: “Unfair Ban Without Hearing”
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket directs NTA to take a contemporary determination for the IIT-JEE Aspirant who was caught utilizing unfair means and dishonest within the examination. The courtroom emphasised that decisionis the violation of precept of pure justice – “audi alteram partem”
Thanks for studying this publish, remember to subscribe!
RAJASTHAN: On 27 Could 2025, Rajasthan Excessive Court docket ordered NTA and the organizing chairperson of the JEE (Advance) to take a contemporary determination affording due alternative of listening to to the petitioner and cross applicable reasoned and talking order, after listening to the facet of the petitioner.
The Court docket has additionally emphasised that the motion of the respondent is utter violation of precept of pure justice “audi alteram partem”.
Background and Details
An IIT-JEE Aspirant filed a writ petition to the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket with a prayer to direct the respondent to declare the results of JEE (Foremost) 2025 with out the UFM (Unfair Honest Means) categorization and permit the petitioner to take part within the JEE (Superior) 2025.
This writ petition challenged the end result declared by the respondent, which withheld the petitioner’s end result for allegedly utilizing unfair means.The petitioner has additionally been disadvantaged from the tutorial periods 2025-26 and 2026-27.
the petitioner has additionally prayed for issuing path to the respondent to declare the results of the petitioner of the JEE (Foremost) 2025 and permit him to look within the JEE (Superior) 2025.
Argument by the Discovered Counsels
PETITIONER SIDE:
The realized counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared within the JEE (Foremost) 2025 and when the end result was declared, petitioner’s end result was withhold on the bottom that he was utilizing unfair means.
Additionally, a call has been taken to debar the petitioner from the examination of the tutorial periods 2025-26 and 2026-27.
The counsel has additional submitted that such determination has been taken on the premise of some CCTV footage and the exparte determination has been taken with out issuing any discover or offering any alternative of listening to to the petitioner.
Counsel submits that such an motion on the a part of the respondents would create stigma on the tutorial profession of the petitioner and the petitioner wouldn’t be able to check additional and get employment in future.
RESPONDENT SIDE:
The realized counsel of the respondent submitted that the petitioner was discovered utilizing unfair means and was wanting into the answer-sheet of a fellow candidate sitting proper adjoining to the petitioner.
Counsel submits that the whole actions of the petitioner whereas sitting within the examination heart in a room, had been captured by the CCTV digicam mounted within the room/premises.
Counsel submits that even when the answer-sheet of the petitioner in addition to the man candidate had been checked, the solutions had been discovered to be verbatim identical and there was no distinction in solutions submitted by each the candidates.
Statement of the Court docket
The Court docket, after listening to each the counsels, got here to a conclusion that the respondents haven’t afforded any alternative of listening to to the petitioner and straightaway the order impugned has been handed.
The courtroom stated,
“The aforesaid motion of the respondents has resulted in utter violation of precept of pure justice – “audi alteram partem” which implies “let the opposite celebration be heard”, earlier than taking opposed motion or earlier than passing any opposed order in opposition to an individual”
The courtroom emphasised that, it’s the bounden responsibility of the involved authority to afford alternative of listening to earlier than passing any opposed order in opposition to the petitioner.
The Court docket additionally acknowledged that,
“The penalty inflicted upon the petitioner would definitely spoil his profession and can carry stigma with him for all instances to come back and can create an obstacle, at any time when he would come forward to get public employment.”
The Court docket directed the respondents to take a contemporary determination after affording due alternative of listening to to the petitioner and cross applicable reasoned and talking order, after listening to the facet of the petitioner.
The Court docket additionally directed the petitioner, that he could seem earlier than the involved authority inside a interval of 1 week.
The courtroom disposed the writ petition with aforesaid observations and instructions.
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Deepak Bishnoi
Respondent- Advocate M.S. Raghav, Advocate Mananjay Singh Rathore
Case Title:
Mahir Bishnoi vs. Nationwide Testing Company
(2025:RJ-JP:22330)
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on IIT-JEE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Rajasthan High Court
