Isabella Mariam

The Karnataka High Court, in a recent judgement, dismissed a writ petition seeking a directive to reopen the NEET-UG 2025 application portal for a candidate who had failed to complete the submission due to a technical issue. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K, delivered the judgment on March 19, 2025, declining to intervene in the procedural timelines established by the National Testing Agency (NTA). The court stated that once the portal is closed, an individual exception cannot be made.

The writ petition was filed by Dinesh Nadurmath on behalf of his daughter, an aspiring candidate for the NEET-UG 2025 examination. The petitioner contended that due to technical issues encountered during the application process, he was unable to upload his daughter’s signature, rendering her application incomplete. Consequently, she was disqualified from appearing for the NEET-UG 2025 examination.

Also Read: Courts Cannot Rewrite Statutory Provisions or Introduce additional procedural Safeguards that are not contemplated by law’: Supreme Court Rejects IAS Officer’s Plea for Mandatory Preliminary

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the registration process was initiated on February 14, 2025, on the official portal of the National Testing Agency (NTA). The personal details and required documents, including the passport-size photograph, left and right-hand fingerprints, and a postcard-sized photograph, were successfully uploaded. However, despite multiple attempts, the signature upload was unsuccessful due to an alleged technical issue. The petitioner argued that since all other required details had been provided, the inability to upload the signature should not disqualify the candidate from the examination.

Further, it was submitted that a correction window was made available between March 9 and March 11, 2025, for candidates who had already completed their submissions. The petitioner contended that he was unaware that incomplete applications were not covered under the correction window policy. It was urged that since minor errors were being permitted for correction, the petitioner’s daughter, whose application was incomplete solely due to the missing signature, should be allowed to rectify the issue and complete her submission.

The respondents, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), opposed the petition, arguing that the deadline for submission was clearly specified in the public notice issued on February 7, 2025. It was submitted that the deadline for completing the online registration was March 7, 2025, at 11:50 PM, and the audit log of the petitioner’s login history demonstrated that no further attempts were made to access the portal until March 10, 2025, after the registration window had closed. The respondents presented the audit logs as evidence, showing that while the petitioner had logged into the portal on February 14 and February 24, 2025, no action was taken to rectify the missing signature before the stipulated deadline.

The respondents stated that making an exception for a single candidate would set a precedent and open the floodgates for similar petitions, disrupting the examination schedule and compromising the integrity of the process. It was further argued that allowing a post-deadline modification could create security risks within the portal and jeopardize the fairness of the admission process for thousands of candidates.

The court carefully examined the arguments presented by both parties and determined that the request to reopen the portal for one candidate was not justified. The Bench observed:

"We notice that the petitioner's daughter's online application form appears to have been uploaded in all respects except for the signature as is specifically stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is clear that though the registration process was completed, the portal clearly showed that the application form is incomplete and the fee payment could not have been made since the application was shown as incomplete."

The court took note of the correction window provided to candidates who had already completed their applications and clarified that this provision did not extend to those who failed to submit a completed form within the deadline. The Bench recorded:

"Correction of details in applications already submitted had been permitted cannot be a reason to contend that a person who failed to upload a completed application before the time provided is to be permitted to upload such application long thereafter."

The Bench also considered the broader implications of granting such relief, stating the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines in large-scale competitive examinations. The court stated:

"If such permission is granted and the portal is opened, it would amount to opening of the pandora's box and create unforeseen complications apart from compromising the very security of the portal and the timelines fixed in respect of thousands of applicants."

The Bench noted that procedural fairness and equal treatment of all candidates were crucial to maintaining the credibility of competitive examinations. It further recorded that deadlines and technical requirements were clearly outlined in the official notification and information bulletin, and candidates were expected to adhere strictly to the specified timelines.

In considering the audit logs presented by the respondents, the court found no evidence supporting the claim that the petitioner made repeated attempts before the deadline to upload the missing signature. The Bench held that since the audit logs confirmed that the petitioner’s final login before the registration deadline was on February 24, 2025, and the next login occurred only after the deadline had passed, the claim of persistent technical issues was not substantiated.

Also Read: “Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed”: Madras HC Dismisses Plea by Disabled Candidate Over TNPSC Exam Sheet Rejection for Missing Signature

In its final judgement, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating:

"In the above factual circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prayer made seeking opening of the portal for uploading of the signature of the petitioner's daughter cannot be granted by this Court in view of the fact that the portal stands closed for all candidates on 07.03.2025."

Advocates Representing the Parties

Petitioner: Mrs. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate

Respondents: Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan, DSGI

Case Title: Dinesh Nadurmath v. Union of India & Anr.

Case Number: WP No. 7606 of 2025

Bench: Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:11338-DB

[Read/Download order]