Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On CAT 2024 Result Dispute | Candidate Seeks Revision Of Answer Key

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Delhi High Court reserved judgment on a petition challenging the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024 results due to alleged errors in the answer key. The petitioner, Aditya Kumar Mallick, argues this affected his scores. The court typically avoids interfering in exam disputes unless there’s an egregious error. Proceedings included presentations from both sides.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday (Jan 3rd) reserved its judgment in a petition challenging the results of the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024, used for admission to Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and other top business schools. The petition, filed by candidate Aditya Kumar Mallick, alleges an uncorrected error in the answer key that has adversely impacted the results.

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, who heard the matter, reiterated that courts generally refrain from interfering in competitive examination disputes, except in extreme cases.

“Law is clear on this aspect, normally the court will not interfere. Only when there is egregious wrong, we will interfere. When there is a grey area, we will not interfere,”

the judge observed.

Advocate Praveen Kumar Singh, representing the petitioner, highlighted that the objection raised to the provisional answer key was supported by 272 candidates and multiple CAT coaching centres.

“Even if two options are correct, we (candidates who did not choose the answer marked as correct in the answer key) are benefiting,” Singh argued.
He contended that IIM Calcutta, which conducted CAT 2024, failed to explain how its declared answer was correct while dismissing the petitioner’s objection.
Singh also criticized the lack of transparency in the review process, questioning, “Why so much concealment?…It has to be explained why their answer is correct, then why my answer is wrong.”

During the post-lunch session, Singh presented videos from coaching centres demonstrating alternative solutions to the contentious question.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, appearing for IIM Calcutta, opposed the plea for court interference.

Nayar emphasized that objections were reviewed by a subject matter expert committee, which affirmed the accuracy of the declared answer.
He urged the Court to defer to the judgment of the examiners, arguing, “A personal difference of opinion about the right answer does not undermine the committee’s view.”
The Court was also presented with the credentials of the experts in a sealed cover.

The petitioner raised an objection to a question in the comprehension section of the CAT exam held on November 24, 2024. Although a provisional answer key was released on December 3, the final key, published without changes, disregarded his objection.

The petitioner alleges that IIM Calcutta hastily declared results on December 19, weeks ahead of the expected timeline in January 2025. “The haste in declaring results speaks volumes,” his plea stated, urging the High Court to: