Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Sachin Datta has stated that the application of the "Disha Panchal normalization formula" to award grace marks in the NEET (UG) 2025 examination is inappropriate where delays were caused due to biometric verification failures allegedly arising from locked Aadhaar data. The Court set aside the impugned judgments that had earlier granted compensatory marks to two candidates. It held that such normalization cannot be extended to non-standardized, unverifiable delays and directed the National Testing Agency to refrain from awarding grace marks in similar cases. The Bench further instructed the NTA to establish a Grievance Redressal Committee to evaluate such claims prospectively.

The matter arose from two Letters Patent Appeals (LPA 490/2025 and LPA 495/2025) filed by the National Testing Agency (NTA) against the judgments passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8483/2025 and W.P.(C) 8520/2025. The Single Judge had directed the NTA to award grace marks using the normalization formula laid down in Disha Panchal and others v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 17 SCC 278. These directions were issued in response to petitions filed by two NEET-UG 2025 examinees alleging loss of crucial examination time due to delays caused by biometric authentication failures at their respective exam centres.

Also Read: IBC Moratorium Doesn’t Bar Voluntary Surrender Of Leased Property | Supreme Court Upholds CoC’s Commercial Wisdom In CIRP

In W.P.(C) 8483/2025, the writ petitioner alleged that despite timely arrival at the exam centre on 04.05.2025, he faced delays due to unsuccessful Aadhaar-based biometric verification, which required him to submit a handwritten undertaking. He claimed that during the examination, he was interrupted for repeated Aadhaar verification and resubmission of the undertaking, causing a time loss of 3 minutes and 32 seconds. The Single Judge relied on CCTV footage and directed the award of grace marks based on the Disha Panchal formula.

In W.P.(C) 8520/2025, the petitioner raised a similar grievance and claimed a loss of 9 minutes and 45 seconds during the examination. Although the relief initially sought included a re-examination and compensation, the Court, as in the first case, awarded grace marks using the normalization formula. Both petitioners were granted "supernumerary ranks" to ensure that their revised positions did not displace other candidates.

The NTA filed LPAs contending that the Disha Panchal formula was inapplicable as the NEET-UG is an OMR-based pen and paper exam, unlike the Computer-Based Test (CBT) in CLAT-2018, to which the Supreme Court's normalization methodology applied. The NTA argued that the examinees' difficulties were due to their own actions, specifically locking their Aadhaar biometrics, which was confirmed by the technical reports of the biometric service provider, Innovatiview India Limited. These reports, annexed with transaction logs, recorded authentication failures with UIDAI error code "330" indicating that the biometrics were locked by the Aadhaar holders.

According to the NTA, candidates chose Aadhaar as their identity document voluntarily and were not compelled to do so. The Information Bulletin clearly allowed other identification documents such as PAN card, Passport, and Driving License. The NTA further submitted that both petitioners arrived just before the last allowed entry time of 01:30 PM and did not utilize the early reporting window of 11:00 AM, reducing the opportunity to resolve any biometric issues.

The NTA raised several objections to the applicability of the normalization formula, stating its arbitrary nature when applied to OMR exams and the non-quantifiable nature of biometric-related delays. It was also pointed out that the CCTV footage showed the candidates inactive during the last minutes of the exam, suggesting they had completed their attempts regardless of the interruptions. The agency warned that awarding grace marks in such cases would disrupt the NEET merit structure and affect lakhs of candidates.

The petitioners opposed the appeal, asserting that they were diligent students who faced interruptions beyond their control and should not be penalized for the technical glitches. They argued that the normalization methodology in Disha Panchal remained good law and had been applied in similar cases like Vaishnavi Sandeep Maniyar v. CBSE (2018 SCC Online Bom 8455), where compensatory marks were awarded for loss of time.

The Single Judge had directed the NTA to assign supernumerary ranks to avoid altering the existing rank list. For example, a revised rank falling between 1000 and 1001 would be denoted as 1000A.

The Division Bench recorded that "the impugned judgment assesses the loss of time that was occasioned during the conduct of examination based on a perusal of the CCTV footage, and thereafter applies the methodology/formula adopted in Disha Panchal (supra) to award 'grace marks'." The Court examined the biometric failure reports submitted by Innovatiview India Ltd., which stated: "the biometric authentication response obtained from UIDAI Server failed...with error code '330' stating 'Biometrics locked by Aadhaar holder'." It further recorded: "In this case, the error message '330' was received every time. The error message '330' corresponds to 'Biometrics locked by Aadhaar holder'."

On the contention of delayed arrival, the Court stated: "It appears quite evident that the writ petitioners did not strictly adhere to the reporting time [11:00 AM] referred to in the admit cards issued to them and arrived at the examination venue shortly before the prescribed outer deadline for last entry."

The Court found substance in the argument that "difficulty in the biometric authentication of the concerned candidates in the present cases was attributable to the conduct of the concerned examinees (writ petitioners) themselves." Regarding the Disha Panchal judgment, the Court distinguished its applicability: "Disha Panchal (supra) dealt with the loss of examination time due to Invigilator related mismanagement, software difficulties... The difficulty in biometric verification cannot be equated with Invigilators’ negligence and the other infrastructural shortcomings involved in Disha Panchal (supra)."

The Court noted that in Alakh Pandey v. NTA and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1922, the Supreme Court refused to apply the Disha Panchal formula to NEET-UG 2024 due to "skewed situation" arising from compensatory marks being given for unanswered questions. The High-Powered Committee in that case had recommended re-tests instead of compensatory marks. The Division Bench observed: "Unlike in Alakh Pandey (supra), the possibility of a re-examination for the concerned examinees (writ petitioners) is precluded on account of: (i) passage of time; and (ii) the statement of the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners to the effect that they are not desirous of appearing in any re-examination."

The Court found that assigning a supernumerary rank "in substance alters the inter-se-merit between candidates" and "counselling and seat allocation in NEET (UG) functions on a rigid rank regime" where "inserting an additional rank, even with a suffix, would affect the inter-se cut off thresholds".

The Division Bench observed: "It would be imprudent to seek to 'calculate' the extent of time lost in individual cases, through visual impression gathered by perusing the CCTV coverage, and then proceeding to work out 'improvisation marks / grace marks'." It concluded: "The entire process of scrutinizing unverifiable claims based on visual perusal and extrapolation from CCTV coverage, and seeking to translate the same into 'improvisation marks', is an exercise that is inherently subjective."

The Division Bench held: "The directions in the impugned order to the effect that the writ petitioners be awarded 'grace marks' by applying 'normalization formula' laid down in Disha Panchal (supra), and the other consequential directions, are set aside."

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Raps School’s Negligence | Fines ₹1 Lakh For Wrong Exam Form And Misleading Transfer Certificate | Orders CBSE To Issue Fresh Marksheet

It further directed: "However, the appellant is directed to streamline the biometric processes for the conduct of future examinations."

The Court endorsed part of the Single Judge’s judgment, stating: "This Court agrees with the directions contained in paragraph 66 of the judgment in W.P.(C) 8483/2025 (subject matter of LPA 490/2025) to the effect that it would be apposite for the NTA to constitute a Grievance Redressal Framework to examine the complaints / grievances of candidates, in the first instance, in a time bound manner."

The appeals and all pending applications were disposed of in accordance with the above terms.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Udayan Verma, Ms. Asmita Singh, and Ms. Disha Joshi, Advocates; Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nitipriya and Mr. Tej Pratap, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pankhuri Srivastava, Ms. Sarica Soam, Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, and Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocates for the NTA (Appellant); Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Anum Hussain, Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Vedant Sood, and Ms. Bhanu Gulati, Advocates; Mr. Nitnjya Chaudhry, SPC with Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advocates

Case Title: National Testing Agency v. Satya Nishth & Ors.; National Testing Agency v. Nishu Maurya & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6505-DB
Case Number: LPA 490/2025 & LPA 495/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Sachin Datta