Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a writ petition challenging NEET-UG 2024 admission cancellation on the basis of alleged examination irregularities, despite the petitioner-candidate not being arraigned as an accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation, a Single-Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh,* J., held that a student’s valuable right accrued by clearing a national entrance examination must be protected and cannot be defeated on unjustifiable grounds. Holding that right to higher education cannot be curtailed lightly, the Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his MBBS classes in accordance with the curriculum.
In the instant matter, the petitioner passed his Class XII examination in 2022 and appeared in the NEET-UG 2024 examination conducted on 05-05-2024. The result was declared on 04-06-2024, whereby he secured an All India Rank of 28,106 and General Category Rank of 11,234. A revised scorecard was issued on 26-07-2024, reflecting that the petitioner had scored 651 out of 720 marks. Pursuant to the counselling process, the petitioner was admitted to the MBBS course at Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital, Balangir, Odisha.
On 15-08-2024, the CBI issued summons to the petitioner to appear before the Anti-Corruption Branch, Bhubaneswar, in connection with alleged irregularities in NEET-UG 2024. Subsequently, the National Testing Agency (NTA) issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23-10-2024 calling upon the petitioner to explain why he should not be debarred.
Despite the petitioner submitting a reply, NTA proceeded to withdraw the NEET-UG 2024 result/scorecard. Consequent thereto, the petitioner’s admission was cancelled by Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital. The NEET-UG 2024 admission cancellation was based on a communication dated 23.01.2025 issued by the National Medical Commission forwarding a list of candidates whose results were withheld on the basis of a CBI report alleging malpractices in NEET-UG 2024.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 seeking a direction to permit him to continue attending MBBS classes and to grant parity with another similarly situated student who had been allowed to continue her studies by the Supreme Court.
The main issue in the instant matter — whether the petitioner’s admission to the MBBS course could be cancelled merely on the basis of allegations of malpractice when he was not an accused in the CBI chargesheet and no prima facie finding had been recorded against him.
The Court observed that the petitioner had secured admission by participating in an open entrance examination on the basis of merit. The Court asserted that “in case the same is to be cancelled, there has to be some valid, genuine and compelling reasons.”
Taking note of the statement made on behalf of the CBI that the petitioner was not an accused but only a witness, the Court held that there cannot be any prima-facie findings of the petitioner committing any malpractices.
The Court further emphasised that the petitioner had acquired a valuable right by clearing the NEET-UG examination and that such right deserved protection. The Court note that “the valuable right accrued to the petitioner by clearing the entrance exam, i.e. NEET-UG needs to be protected, as the action of cancellation of admission and removal of the name of the petitioner from the MBBS course is disrupting the academic progress of the petitioner on totally unjustifiable grounds.”
The Court recognised the right to pursue higher and professional education as an affirmative obligation of the State and held that it cannot be curtailed lightly.
“The right to pursue higher or professional education even though not explicitly spelt out as a fundamental right in part III of the Constitution of India, it is an affirmative obligation on the part of the state to ensure this right and the same cannot be permitted to be curtailed, lightly.”
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his MBBS classes in accordance with the curriculum.
[Harshit Agrawal v. National Testing Agency, W.P.(C) 12514/2025, Decided on 07-01-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Jasmeet Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Anuraag Mehta, Mr. Ganga Sagar Singh, Mr. Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya, Mr. Adarsh Verma, Mr. Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya, Mr. Ganga Sagar Singh, Mr. Anurag Mehta and Mr. Anjana Devi, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Ms. Monika Tiwari andMr. Suryans Agrrwal, Counsel for the Respondent 1
Mr. Vikas Kr. Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent 3
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain and Mr. Nipun Jain, Counsel for the Respondent 6