No Re-Test For NEET Candidates Affected By Power Outage | Madhya Pradesh High Court Cancels Relief But Directs NTA And Authorities To Ensure Proper Exam Arrangements In Future
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi has set aside the order directing the conduct of a re-test for certain candidates who appeared in the NEET (UG) 2025 examination. The court held that the statistical analysis and field verification conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) did not support the claim of systemic failure affecting the integrity of the examination. Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the appeals filed by the NTA and dismissed the batch of writ petitions previously allowed by the Single Judge. The court concluded that the re-test was not warranted in the absence of demonstrable prejudice affecting performance on a large scale and observed that the exceptional circumstances required for such relief had not been established.
The case arose from the conduct of the NEET (UG) 2025 examination held on May 4, 2025. Multiple writ petitions were filed by students who appeared from centres located in Indore and Ujjain, citing disruption caused by a severe thunderstorm and rainfall that led to power outages during examination hours. The students alleged that the lack of lighting adversely affected their ability to attempt the paper under optimal conditions.
According to the petitioners, the affected centres lacked appropriate backup lighting arrangements, which impaired visibility and induced significant stress during the examination. They asserted that candles, emergency lights, or natural light were insufficient to meet the necessary standards for a high-stakes national-level examination. Petitioners supported their contentions through video footage, media reports, IMD weather bulletins, and statements from local authorities acknowledging the disruptions.
The NTA, responsible for conducting NEET (UG) 2025 in pen-and-paper OMR mode at 5468 centres across India and abroad, opposed the relief sought. In Indore and Ujjain, a total of 31,289 candidates appeared at 58 centres. The NTA admitted that certain centres experienced power outages but asserted that alternate arrangements ensured the smooth conduct of the examination. Reports submitted by Centre Superintendents, the District Administration, and NEET observers were relied upon by the NTA to show that the examination process was completed without material disruption.
The NTA placed before the court a Statistical Analysis Report prepared by a three-member Expert Committee consisting of academics from Delhi University and IIT Delhi. The report concluded with 99% confidence at a 1% significance level that there was no statistically significant adverse impact on candidates' performance from the centres in question. It found no marked difference in the number of questions attempted or scores obtained between students from affected and unaffected centres. Additionally, the NTA stated that a student from one of the allegedly affected centres secured All India Rank 2 and that several petitioners had attempted nearly all 180 questions, undermining claims of impairment.
The writ petitioners argued that the qualitative and psychological impact of the disruption could not be measured through statistical models and stressed that even minimal disturbances could affect composure during the time-bound examination. They also stated the absence of CCTV footage from the affected centres, which could have objectively shown the lighting conditions, and pointed out that such footage was mandated to be preserved under NTA guidelines.
The Single Judge, by final order dated June 23, 2025, allowed the writ petitions partially. The court directed the NTA to conduct a re-examination for students who approached the court before June 3, 2025, the date of the release of the Provisional Answer Key. The relief was denied to those who filed their petitions after this cutoff date. The court held that the re-test ranks would be solely based on the scores obtained therein.
The NTA, aggrieved by the order, filed writ appeals contesting the direction for a re-test. Certain students also appealed, challenging their exclusion from the re-test on the basis of the cutoff date.
The Solicitor General of India, Shri Tushar Mehta, representing the NTA, submitted that temporary power outages alone did not invalidate the examination and stated the large scale and uniformity of the NEET process, which is conducted in a single shift across thousands of centres. He stated that only 78 petitioners out of 31,289 candidates from Indore and Ujjain had approached the court, and even among them, not all were from the most affected centres.
It was argued that the disruption was managed through backup power systems and that natural lighting sufficed in many centres. Reports from local authorities confirmed the completion of the examination process, and the average number of questions attempted remained consistent across all centres. The Solicitor General further pointed out that no student had demanded extra time during the examination and that many affected centre candidates secured qualifying marks, including one who achieved AIR Rank 2.
Counsel for the petitioners opposed the appeals, contending that sufficient power backup was not provided and that the lack of visibility impacted students’ ability to perform. They contended that statistical data could not capture the psychological stress endured by students and stated that the exam's high-stakes nature warranted consideration of such factors. Petitioners also argued that they should not be penalized for approaching the court after June 3, 2025, particularly when several had first approached NTA through grievance redressal channels.
"It is correct that for every child this exam is very important for his future career, but it is also important to note that out of 27,264 candidates, only 70 candidates have filed writ petitions complaining about disruption due to power outage which is a very insignificant figure."
"The situation, which occurred suddenly, was beyond the control of NTA as well as local administration because normally Monsoon never reaches to eastern part of Madhya Pradesh in the first week of May, therefore, no one could anticipate rainfall and thunder in peak summer days."
"It is correct that due to the power failure, a disturbance was caused to the students who had to attempt 180 questions in 03 hours 25 minutes with concentration."
"There is no guarantee that even if the re-test is done in all conducive circumstances or atmosphere, they will secure higher marks than this examination. All the students are not willing to appear in the re-test."
"Second sets are always prepared in each and every examination in order to be used in case the first set of question papers is leaked, destroyed, lost etc., but in one examination, both sets of question papers cannot be used."
"The Committee recommended that it was not a fit case of awarding compensatory marks or re-testing." We do not find that it is a fit case for a re-test of NEET (UG) 2025."
The High Court allowed all the writ appeals filed by the National Testing Agency and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court dated June 23, 2025. The court recorded: "Hence, all the Writ Appeals filed by the National Testing Agency stand allowed. The impugned order passed by the Writ Court dated 23.06.2025 is hereby set aside, all the writ petitions are dismissed."
The Division Bench further held: "In view of the above, Writ Appeals filed by students are hereby dismissed."
While declining relief to all petitioners, including those who approached the court after the release of the Provisional Answer Key, the court stated: "It makes no difference whether the writ petitioners approached earlier or later on during the pendency of the writ petitions, but the issue is that all the writ petitioners are similarly placed."
The Bench issued directions for the future conduct of similar examinations: "In order to avoid such a situation in future, NTA as well as the local administration of each district are directed to ensure that all the measures, especially the continuity of power supply by way of regular supply or by way of alternate mode of supply, proper sitting arrangement, availability of air and cooling etc. It is the responsibility of the local administration to prepare the list of centres which can be used for these types of important examinations by any of the agencies."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Shri Vivek Sharan, Shri Mradul Bhatnagar, Shri N.S. Bhati, Shri Chinmaya Mehta, Shri Aditya Sanghi, Shri Kamal Tiwari, Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, Shri Ajay Jain, Ms. Kirti Patwardhan
For the Respondents: Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, Shri Rupesh Kumar, Senior Counsel, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Shri Romesh Dave, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Ms. Diksha Paliwal, Shri Atharva Dave, Ms. Bhumika Dwivedi
Case Title: National Testing Agency and Others v. Laxmi Devi and Others (Connected matters)
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-IND:17837
Case Number: W.A. No. 1842 of 2025 & Connected Appeals
Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
