Rajasthan High Court directs NTA to take a fresh decision for the IIT-JEE Aspirant who was caught using unfair means and cheating in the examination. The court emphasized that decisionis the violation of principle of natural justice – “audi alteram partem”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RAJASTHAN: On 27 May 2025, Rajasthan High Court ordered NTA and the organizing chairperson of the JEE (Advance) to take a fresh decision affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order, after hearing the side of the petitioner.
The Court has also emphasized that the action of the respondent is utter violation of principle of natural justice “audi alteram partem”.
Background and Facts
An IIT-JEE Aspirant filed a writ petition to the Rajasthan High Court with a prayer to direct the respondent to declare the result of JEE (Main) 2025 without the UFM (Unfair Fair Means) categorization and allow the petitioner to participate in the JEE (Advanced) 2025.
This writ petition challenged the result declared by the respondent, which withheld the petitioner’s result for allegedly using unfair means.The petitioner has also been deprived from the academic sessions 2025-26 and 2026-27.
the petitioner has also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent to declare the result of the petitioner of the JEE (Main) 2025 and allow him to appear in the JEE (Advanced) 2025.
Argument by the Learned Counsels
PETITIONER SIDE:
The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the JEE (Main) 2025 and when the result was declared, petitioner’s result was withhold on the ground that he was using unfair means.
Also, a decision has been taken to debar the petitioner from the examination of the academic sessions 2025-26 and 2026-27.
The counsel has further submitted that such decision has been taken on the basis of some CCTV footage and the exparte decision has been taken without issuing any notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Counsel submits that such an action on the part of the respondents would create stigma on the educational career of the petitioner and the petitioner would not be in a position to study further and get employment in future.
RESPONDENT SIDE:
The learned counsel of the respondent submitted that the petitioner was found using unfair means and was looking into the answer-sheet of a fellow candidate sitting right adjacent to the petitioner.
Counsel submits that the entire activities of the petitioner while sitting in the examination center in a room, were captured by the CCTV camera fixed in the room/premises.
Counsel submits that even when the answer-sheet of the petitioner as well as the fellow candidate were checked, the answers were found to be verbatim same and there was no difference in answers submitted by both the candidates.
Observation of the Court
The Court, after listening to both the counsels, came to a conclusion that the respondents have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and straightaway the order impugned has been passed.
The court said,
“The aforesaid action of the respondents has resulted in utter violation of principle of natural justice – “audi alteram partem” which means “let the other party be heard”, before taking adverse action or before passing any adverse order against a person”
The court emphasized that, it is the bounden duty of the concerned authority to afford opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order against the petitioner.
The Court also stated that,
“The penalty inflicted upon the petitioner would certainly spoil his career and will carry stigma with him for all times to come and will create an impediment, whenever he would come ahead to get public employment.”
The Court directed the respondents to take a fresh decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order, after hearing the side of the petitioner.
The Court also directed the petitioner, that he may appear before the concerned authority within a period of one week.
The court disposed the writ petition with aforesaid observations and directions.
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Deepak Bishnoi
Respondent- Advocate M.S. Raghav, Advocate Mananjay Singh Rathore
Case Title:
Mahir Bishnoi vs. National Testing Agency
(2025:RJ-JP:22330)
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on IIT-JEE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Rajasthan High Court
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
