MP High Court Orders NEET Re-Test For Candidates Affected By Exam Disruption
The Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has directed the Nationwide Testing Company (NTA) to conduct a re-examination for NEET UG 2025 candidates who confronted disruption as a result of energy failure at their examination centres on Might 4, 2025. The Courtroom held that even brief disruptions can have a big psychological influence in a time-bound national-level examination and prolonged the good thing about a re-test solely to these Petitioners who had approached the Courtroom earlier than the reply key was printed.
A Single Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar noticed, “…the petitioner/s has/have made out a case for interference beneath Article 14 as her/they, with out there being any fault on their half, was/have been put right into a disadvantageous place as a result of energy outage, which situation didn’t prevail within the different examination centre and even within the similar centre the place a number of the college students have been sitting at favorable spots having ample pure gentle.”
The Courtroom added, “It should be remembered that the examination was solely of three hours period, during which, even for ten minutes, if a pupil faces a problem in studying and writing as a result of energy outage, the identical has the impact of rattling one’s psychological situation, and ample to disturb his or her composure and focus for the remaining time.”
Advocate Mradul Bhatnagar appeared for the Petitioners, whereas Solicitor Common of India Tushar Mehta represented the Respondents.
Transient Info
The Petitioners have been NEET UG 2025 aspirants who appeared for the examination at varied centres in Indore. On the day of the examination, a thunderstorm brought on a whole energy outage at a number of venues, the place the Petitioners have been assigned. Some rooms reportedly had no electrical energy or backup lighting, forcing candidates to put in writing their papers in close to or full darkness.
Regardless of these situations, the Petitioners tried the examination and later moved the Courtroom searching for a re-test, citing violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Structure. They supported their declare with media studies, social media movies, and statements by district authorities acknowledging the weather-related disruption.
The Respondents, together with the NTA and Union of India, opposed the plea and relied on statistical evaluation and bodily audit studies to argue that the candidates’ efficiency was not considerably impacted. In addition they submitted that granting a re-test would violate the precept of equal remedy. It was additional submitted by the Respondents that no CCTV footage was accessible to corroborate the Petitioners’ claims.
Reasoning of the Courtroom
The Courtroom rejected the argument that statistical studies alone might show the equity of the examination course of, noting that purely quantitative knowledge did not account for the psychological misery suffered by college students who skilled energy outages through the paper. “In the thought of opinion of this courtroom, such report which doesn’t take into account the human feelings prevailing at the moment, can’t be blindly accepted on its face worth”, the Courtroom added.
On the doubtless psychological influence of even transient intervals of darkness through the examination, the Courtroom said, “It should be remembered that the examination was solely of three hours period, during which, even for ten minutes, if a pupil faces a problem in studying and writing as a result of energy outage, the identical has the impact of rattling one’s psychological situation, and ample to disturb his or her composure and focus for the remaining time.”
The Bench additionally expressed concern that regardless of NTA tips mandating CCTV surveillance in any respect centres, no video footage was submitted from the affected venues. It noticed, “This Courtroom additionally finds that as per the rules offered to the examination centres… centres should have CCTV put in in them, and admittedly the respondents haven’t come out with even a single CCTV footage of the courses the place exams have been being performed and there was energy outage.”
To grasp the extent of sunshine that candidates might need skilled, the Courtroom symbolically turned off the lights within the courtroom through the listening to. It discovered that whereas minimal gentle entered via home windows, it was not ample for examination functions. The Courtroom famous, “At the time of listening to of this case, this Courtroom, to establish as to what stage of issue might need been confronted by the scholars, had additionally switched off the lights of the courtroom, which did have an impact of dimming the sunshine within the courtroom to a comparatively low ranges by means of pure gentle.”
In response to NTA’s objection about making ready a brand new paper of equal issue, the Courtroom noticed, “To date because the preparation of the paper of the identical stage of issue is worried, this courtroom believes that the respondent No.1, with its huge assets can be in a position to provide you with an answer.”
The Courtroom held that solely these Petitioners who had approached the Courtroom previous to June 3, 2025, i.e., earlier than the publication of the provisional reply key, can be entitled to a re-test., “It’s directed to the respondent No.1 Nationwide Testing Company to conduct the examination as expeditiously as doable and declare the outcomes. It’s made clear that the petitioner/s rank based mostly solely on her/their scores within the re-test shall be thought of”, the Courtroom directed.
The Bench additional directed that the counselling can be topic to the ultimate results of the petitioner within the re-test.
Accordingly, the Courtroom allowed the writ petitions; nonetheless, it clarified that no aid can be prolonged to candidates who filed petitions after the discharge of the provisional reply key.
Trigger Title: Laxmi Devi v. Nationwide Testing Company & Ors. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:MPHC-IND:14992)
Look:
Petitioners: Advocates Mradul Bhatnagar, Akash Sharma, N.S. Bhati, Nitin Vyas, Amit Raj, Rajnish Yadav, Aman Mourya, Prakhar Karpe, Chinmay Mehta, Dharmendra Thakur, Atul Bukhariya, Madhusudan Dwivedi, Sapna Patwa, Ajay Ukas, Jaswant Singh Chouhan, Rahul Yadav, Deesha Goyal, Ashish Choubey, Vikas Jain, Arjun Pathak
Respondents: Solicitor Common of India Tushar Mehta; Deputy Solicitor Common of India Romesh Dave; Senior Advocate Rupesh Kumar; Advocates Pankhuri Shrivastava, Diksha Paliwal, Bhumika Dwivedi, Atharava Dave
