Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai dismissed a writ petition seeking extension of the NEET-UG 2025 application deadline and reopening of the registration portal. The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to complete registration due to lack of documents did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting judicial intervention. It further held that reopening the portal would be contrary to established examination procedures and judicial precedent, stating, “No writ of mandamus can be issued.”

The writ petition was filed seeking multiple reliefs against the National Testing Agency (NTA) and other respondents. The primary relief sought was a direction to reopen the NEET-UG 2025 registration portal for two to three days to allow candidates, including the petitioner, to complete registration. The petitioner also requested an interim stay on the further conduct of the examination, including the issuance of admit cards and declaration of results, until the final decision on the petition.

Also Read: Mere Suspicion Cannot Lead to Conviction’: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Reversing Acquittal Without Proof of Homicide, Frees Man in Wife’s Death Case

The petitioner’s contention was that she was unable to upload necessary documents during the application window due to technical issues and unavailability of the documents at the relevant time. It was submitted that the petitioner was willing and eligible but was prevented from completing the registration process due to circumstances beyond her control.

Learned Advocate Mr. Brijesh K. Ramanuj, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that technical glitches on the NTA portal compounded the petitioner’s difficulties and justified the reopening of the application portal. The petition annexed relevant screenshots and documents purportedly indicating server errors.

Respondent No. 1, represented by Mr. K.V. Shelat, opposed the petition, pointing out that the registration window had already closed on 07.03.2025 and that multiple public notices had been issued well in advance. It was contended that applicants had ample time to complete the process and that reopening the portal would compromise the integrity and uniformity of a national-level examination process.

Mr. Shelat referred to a recent decision dated 27.03.2025 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate v. Union of India, where a similar plea was dismissed. In that case, the petitioner had also failed to submit an application due to personal and technical reasons. The Bombay High Court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC 743], held that reopening the portal could lead to manipulation and was impermissible in the absence of an express statutory mechanism.

The respondents stated that similar requests have consistently been denied by courts across jurisdictions. It was argued that granting such reliefs would open the floodgates to multiple litigations and render the regulatory framework for national examinations unworkable.

During the course of arguments, the petitioner admitted through counsel that the inability to submit the form was due to the unavailability of documents during the open registration window. The respondents maintained that this did not amount to an exceptional circumstance and stated again that the petitioner did not have an accrued right to demand reopening of the portal.

Justice Nirzar S. Desai examined the facts in detail and concluded that the petitioner had failed to make out a case that would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court stated that no candidate could be granted extraordinary indulgence in the absence of a statutory provision or an overriding circumstance.

The Court relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate v. Union of India, quoting directly:

“Irrespective of the reasons, the issue as to whether after the last date for filling up the form online was over, a candidate can be permitted to participate in the NEET examination that too by invoking powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

It further recorded: “The reopening of the window may hypothetically result in facilitating some malpractice, as is the apprehension expressed by the Supreme Court.”

Justice Desai observed:

“Merely because the petitioner could not submit her application online, for want of relevant documents, the same would not create any right in favour of the petitioner to seek a direction against the respondents to open the window / portal so that she can submit her application, online.”

On the issue of judicial intervention, the Court stated: “No such direction can be issued in favour of a person, unless he / she makes out an exceptional case for so doing.”

Referring to Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, the Court noted: “If a number of persons are allowed to submit their forms online, by opening the window, the same would lead to allegations of manipulation.”

Further, the High Court recorded: “We cannot evolve a novel method which is not prescribed by the regulation. If the regulations do not permit submission of the applications in physical form, no writ of mandamus can be issued.”

The Court held that judicial interference was unwarranted in a matter governed by clear statutory and regulatory mechanisms, especially when the petitioner admitted to having failed to act within the notified timelines.

Also Read: “Don’t Punish Students for Institutional Lapses”: Rajasthan HC Regularizes Dental Admissions with Fine, Warns Colleges to ‘Desist from Irregular Admissions’

The High Court stated:

“In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Vanshika Yadav’ and the observations made by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court... so also the fact that the petitioner failed to make out an exceptional case, I do not see any reason to even issue notice and to entertain this matter.”

Accordingly, the Court directed: “This petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Brijesh K. Ramanuj, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. K.V. Shelat, Advocate, Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, Mr. Vikas V. Nair, Advocate

Case Title: Bharvad Meghankaben Nareshbhai through Natural Guardian and Father Bharvad Nareshbhai Dalabhai v. National Testing Agency (NTA) through its Director General & Ors.

Case Number: Special Civil Application No. 4049 of 2025

Coram: Justice Nirzar S. Desai

[Read/Download order]