Delhi HC sets aside order awarding grace marks to NEET candidates: ‘Would open floodgates'
A division bench of the HC also held that awarding grace marks in this case would open the floodgates to similar claims by candidates of other exams, even for minor delays in biometric authentication.
Two candidates had moved court, seeking that they be compensated as they lost time during the exam, owing to 'acts of omission and commission by personnel deployed at the examination venue' due to the failure of biometric verification'. As a result, there was a delay in authentication, they said.
The aspirants had also highlighted that they were interrupted while writing the exam to undergo Aadhaar verification once again.
In an order dated July 28, Justice Vikas Mahajan had directed that the students be awarded grace marks by applying the formula laid down in a Supreme Court judgment. The court had also ordered that the students be assigned a supernumerary rank to ensure their revised ranking does not affect the positions of other candidates.
The single judge's order was challenged by NTA before the HC division bench.
On Wednesday, the bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Sachin Datta set aside the single judge's order. The bench took into account that the candidates had not strictly adhered to the reporting time at their exam centre — 11 am. It also said a report from the technical agency (Innovatiview India Limited) indicated that the difficulty in biometric authentication of the two aspirants was on account of 'biometrics locked by the Aadhaar Holder'.
Noting that there is merit in the NTA's assertion that 'the difficulty in biometric authentication of the candidates concerned in the present cases was attributable to the conduct of the examinees concerned themselves', the court also observed that granting grace marks will 'open floodgates' to claims by candidates who experience even minor delays in biometric authentication.
'.. a larger issue that concerns the Court viz. the chaotic consequences of extending 'marks improvisation' for individual delays in biometric authentication for reasons not attributable to the testing agency. Such an approach would open the floodgates to claims by candidates who experienced even minor technical delays in biometric authentication… Any such delay, besides being not attributable to the appellant, is not scientifically measurable, the bench reasoned.
Noting that the single judge had arrived at the loss of time caused to the candidates through CCTV footage as the exam itself was on pen-paper OMR, and not a computer based test, the bench recorded, 'The entire process of scrutinising 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.'
It further said, 'Undoubtedly, the same would undermine the finality and legitimacy of the results of the examination… Moreover, biometric verifications are part of the mandatory security process, which ensures the integrity of the examination by preventing impersonation. Granting marks for delays in the process of biometric verification, that too for no fault of the appellant, would not be a justifiable course to follow…'
The bench said at this stage, 'it would be imprudent to seek to 'calculate' the extent of time lost in individual cases through visual impression gathered by perusing CCTV coverage, and then proceeding to work out 'improvisation/grace marks''.
The bench also held that 'the concept of 'supernumerary rank' has no basis in the extant examination regulations' and it 'alters the inter-se merit between candidates', which may further affect cut-off thresholds.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Banke Bihari Temple row: Supreme Court sets up 14-member panel to oversee functioning
The Supreme Court has set up a 14-member high-powered Temple Management Committee under former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Ashok Kumar to 'oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning inside and outside' the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan till the High Court takes a decision on the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Ordinance bringing the shrine management under a trust. The committee members will include retired District & Sessions Judge Mukesh Mishra, District & Sessions Judge, Mathura, Munsif/Civil Judge, Mathura, District Magistrate/Collector, Mathura, Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, Municipal Commissioner, Mathura, Vice Chairman, Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority, a renowned architect to be engaged by the chairperson, a representative from the ASI and two persons each from Raj Bhog and Shayan Bhog — the two groups among Goswamis who are the temple's traditional administrators. The District Magistrate/Collector, Mathura, will also function as the member secretary. The August 8 order by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said: 'The Committee shall make an endeavor to plan the holistic development of the Temple… for which they may privately negotiate suitable purchase of the requisite land. In case no such negotiation fructifies, the State Government is directed to proceed with acquisition of the required land in accordance with law.' The court also said 'besides the four members in the Committee representing the Goswamis, no other Goswami or sevayat shall be allowed to interfere or impede in any way in the managing of the Temple's critical functions…' The order came on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and the directions in the SC's May 15, 2025 order allowing the state to use temple funds to buy 5 acres of land around the shrine for a proposed corridor project intended to decongest the area and improve facilities for visiting devotees. The SC pointed out that even before the May 15 order, the HC had by order dated November 8, 2023 disallowed the state from utilising the temple funds for land acquisition as part of the proposed redevelopment plan and the judgment was never challenged by the state and had thus attained finality. Noting that the May 15 order was passed not in any appeal challenging the November 2023 order, but by enlarging the scope of another matter where it was hearing a plea regarding the administration of Sri Giriraj Temple at Govardhan, Mathura, the SC said, given the fact that the HC order had attained finality, 'this Court could not have, in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction, effectively set aside the HC's judgment without any formal appeal or challenge being placed before it'. The SC directed that the concerned paragraphs be expunged from the May 15 order. While directing those who had challenged the constitutional validity of the Ordinance to approach the HC, the bench stayed the 'operation of' its 'in the interregnum, only to the extent they grant the state powers to constitute a Trust for managing the Temple's affairs'. 'Consequently, the constitution of the Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust, as defined in Section 3 of the Ordinance and its composition, as contained in Section 5, shall be kept in abeyance till the question of validity of the Ordinance is finally resolved by the High Court.' It clarified that 'this interim direction shall not preclude the state from ratification of the Ordinance in the state Assembly' but added that this will 'obviously be subject to outcome of the' HC decision on the Ordinance. It asked the HC to decide the question of constitutional validity of the UP Ordinance 'expeditiously and preferably within one year of the fresh writ petitions being filed'. Explaining why it was setting up the committee, the court said, 'We are equally mindful that the sum of our directions shall effectively leave the management of the subject-Temple in limbo yet again, since the ad-hoc arrangement of Temple-management has been wholly ineffective and inefficient in discharging its duties over the years. We are pained to observe that the previous administerial deadlock(s) and in-fighting have only worsened the problems… causing much distress to the pilgrims…' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Udaipur Files producer says he is receiving death threats after film's release
A day after Udaipur Files was released in theatres across India, producer Amit Jani claimed that he has been receiving 'death threats' over the film. In a X post on Saturday, Jani stated that he has been getting repeated calls from an unknown number, with the caller threatening to kill him with a bomb or shoot him. Jani added that the caller introduced himself as Tabrez, a resident of Bihar. In his post, Jani urged the authorities to register a case against Tabrez and arrest him. Last month, the Central government granted 'Y'-category armed security cover to the Udaipur Files producer in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. It came days after the Supreme Court allowed the producer to approach the police and seek protection as he alleged a threat to his life. Y-category security includes a detail of 8 to 11 personnel, including commandos, to protect the individual around the clock. Udaipur Files was released across India on Friday, August 8, after the Delhi High Court on Thursday gave the go-ahead for its release. It was initially slated for release on July 11, but faced many delays due to censorship and legal troubles. The Supreme Court had directed the Delhi High Court to address challenges against the government's approval of the film's release. Udaipur Files is based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor, who was brutally killed in broad daylight in his shop in Udaipur, Rajasthan, by two men for allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed during a debate show on a private news channel. According to police reports from 2022, the prime accused, Mohammad Riaz Attari and Ghaus Mohammad, entered Lal's shop pretending to get clothes stitched before attacking him with a knife and slitting his throat. They recorded the brutal murder and circulated the video on social media, claiming responsibility for the heinous act, which triggered national outrage and raised serious concerns about radicalisation and communal violence. The accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Initially, the case was probed by the Rajasthan police, but later the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over it. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur. Also Read | 'Aamir Khan is supporting me financially, he gives me a monthly allowance': Brother Faissal Khan recalls career-destroying movie Mela Udaipur Files, starring Vijay Raaz in the lead role, is directed by Bharat S Shrinate and Jayant Sinha, and produced by Amit Jani.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Ex RCom employee wins alimony case against first wife due to financial distress and despite second marriage and property sale
ET Online Delhi HC denies wife's alimony demand which she filed after finding out husband's property sale deal and 2nd marriage; Know why husband won On August 4, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected a demand for Rs 60,000 in monthly maintenance (alimony) from a wife who worked as a senior teacher in a reputed secondary school in New Delhi. The court held that she couldn't claim alimony from her husband since it was proved that she had some source of income while her husband's financial, physical and emotional conditions were visibly strained. The husband's lawyers told Delhi High Court: 'The Respondent (husband), aged around 73 years, was formerly employed with Reliance Communication, where he served until his retirement in the year 2017. It is stated that, owing to the financial collapse and insolvency of the said company, he was deprived of his retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues. The Respondent (husband) contends that he is unemployed, and is devoid of any independent source of income.' Moreover, the Delhi High Court noted that the wife filed this maintenance (alimony) case only after she found out about her estranged husband's second marriage and the sale of his property. The Delhi High Court looked into this and found : 'The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even. In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (wife) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.'The Delhi High Court also uncovered more lies from the wife. Keep reading to see the legal reasoning the High Court used to rule in favour of the husband. How did this maintenance (alimony) case start? According to the order of Delhi High Court dated August 4, 2025, here's the timeline of events: March 22, 1978: The marriage happens. The marriage happens. November 24, 1986: First son is born. First son is born. May 11, 1986: Second son is born. Second son is born. 1987: Wife starts living separately from her husband with their two sons. Wife starts living separately from her husband with their two sons. 2003: A joint petition for divorce was filed by both of them. A joint petition for divorce was filed by both of them. July 2014: Wife retires from her school teaching job. Wife retires from her school teaching job. 2017: Husband retires from his job. Husband retires from his job. February 24, 2021: Wife filed a petition in family court seeking a declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by the Husband is null and void ab initio as it is bigamy. Wife filed a petition in family court seeking a declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by the Husband is null and void ab initio as it is bigamy. February 8, 2023: Family court dismissed wife's application under Section 24 for interim maintenance of Rs 60,000 per month, and litigation expenses amounting to Rs 1,00,000. She filed an appeal in Delhi High Court after this. Wife filed the alimony case only when she came to know about the husband's second marriage and property deal The Delhi High Court said: 'The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even. "In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (husband) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.' Wife has adequate financial resources to support her Delhi HC said: 'It stands placed on record that the Appellant (wife) is in possession of matured LIC policies in her name. The Appellant (wife) is also residing with her two sons, both of whom appear to be gainfully employed. Though there appears to be some whatsapp chats of the year 2020 and 2021 where one of the sons was asking for money, the income affidavit of the appellant suggests that both sons are having independent income.' 'It was also stated by the counsel that both sons are independently earning. In light of these facts, it appears that the Appellant (wife) has adequate financial resources and support systems available to her.' Also read: Divorce case: Wife's WhatsApp chats can be valid evidence about her extramarital affair, even when obtained without her consent, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court Wife is lying about her finances Delhi HC said: The Appellant's (wife) claim that she is sustaining herself on donations from her former students does not appear to be supported by any evidence. The fact that various sums were deposited by unrelated persons, without necessary proof in support, cuts no ice in favour of either of the parties. However, it clearly leads us to conclude that the Appellant (wife) has some source of income to enable her to take care of herself. Delhi High Court's investigation: Husband is living off loans given by brother and friend Question of law answered by Delhi High Court: 'The issue arising for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the rejection of the claim for maintenance pendente lite (during litigation) and expenses of proceedings made by the Appellant under Section 24 of the Act.'The Delhi High Court said: (no part of the judge's judgement has been altered or changed) 'This Court notes the submission advanced on behalf of Respondent (husband), who is stated to be more than 70 years of age, rendering him unfit for any gainful employment.' 'It is further brought on record that the Respondent (husband) was previously employed with Reliance Communication till 2017; however, owing to the company's financial collapse and subsequent insolvency proceedings, he was deprived of all retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues.' 'In addition, as evident from the reply to the appeal filed by the Respondent (husband) before this Court, it emerges that the Respondent has had to borrow substantial sums - Rs 10,00,000 from his brother and Rs 13,00,000 from a friend, for the purpose of meeting his basic living expenses. These liabilities, incurred solely for sustenance, remain outstanding and unpaid, owing to the Respondent's (husband) continuing financial incapacity.' Delhi High Court said: 'In the present case, it is clear that the Respondent's financial frailty, compounded by his advanced age, and loss of post-retirement entitlements, weighs significantly against imposing any further pecuniary obligation upon him.' Delhi High Court final judgement: No maintenance for wife Delhi HC said: 'In light of the above authoritative pronouncements and in the absence of any persuasive evidence justifying the Appellant's (wife) claim of the interim maintenance, this Court is of the considered view that the Respondent (husband) should not be burdened with the obligation to provide interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical and emotional conditions are visibly strained.' 'In our considered opinion, the income of the Appellant (wife) is sufficient to maintain herself, and as such, the learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Appellant (wife) under Section 24 of the Act.' 'We do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that observations made in this order do not tantamount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the case that is pending before the learned Family Court.' What did Delhi High Court say about Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act? The High Court said: Before embarking upon the merits of the appeal, it is apposite to examine the legislative intent underlying Section 24 of the Act. The primary object of this provision is to ensure that in matrimonial proceedings, the spouse who is genuinely unable to maintain themselves or to meet the expenses of the proceedings is not placed at a procedural disadvantage. The law ensures that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain. The invocation of Section 24 is not to be construed as an automatic entitlement. The discretion conferred upon the Court under this provision is wide, and must be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the financial standing, independent income, and overall circumstances of both parties. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur6 , and Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act: 'Section 24 is to ensure basic sustenance during litigation, not to impose undue financial burden or to match the lifestyle of the other spouse. Furthermore, it bears emphasis that Section 24 is not intended to act as a substitute for maintenance obligations under personal law. Rather, it is confined to the grant of pendente lite maintenance and expenses of litigation in the course of matrimonial proceedings. Importantly, the statute contemplates applications from either spouse, and in no manner exempts the applicant from demonstrating genuine financial distress.'
