The Delhi High Court directed that a Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) aspirant be allowed to re-appear for the exam after finding that a biometric malfunction during the candidate’s test unjustly disrupted his performance and affected his mental equilibrium. The bench emphasised that fairness in competitive examinations must encompass not only procedural integrity but also consideration of factors that impact a candidate’s state of mind, especially where circumstances beyond the candidate’s control undermine their ability to perform.
The petition was filed by a student who appeared for the JEE Main examination but encountered a biometric glitch at the test centre that interrupted his examination session. According to the petitioner, despite following all prescribed protocols and arriving on time, he faced repeated biometric authentication failures, which led to undue delay, anxiety and loss of focus during the examination. Although the technical issue was ultimately resolved, the aspirant contended that the glitch had materially affected his performance in a high-stakes competitive test, depriving him of a fair opportunity relative to other candidates. He sought a writ directing the examination authority to grant him a chance to re-appear for the paper.
The State and the examination authority opposed the plea, arguing that the examination had been conducted in accordance with established procedures and that isolated technical issues, while regrettable, did not warrant a re-examination for an individual candidate. They contended that allowing re-examinations on account of individual grievances could lead to administrative chaos and undermine the uniformity of testing conditions. The respondents also urged the court to consider the extensive logistics and nationwide scope involved in administering the JEE and cautioned against judicial interference in academic and examination domain matters.
In considering the petition, the High Court drew attention to the fundamental principle that the right to equality and non-arbitrariness in public examinations must be read as inclusive of fairness in the opportunity to perform, which necessarily has a bearing on a candidate’s mental state during the exam. The court observed that an examination environment disrupted by avoidable technical glitches could result in elevated stress and anxiety, adversely impacting performance in objective tests where concentration and composure are critical.
The bench examined the cause and sequence of events, including the record of biometric failures at the test centre and the candidate’s documented efforts to resolve the issue. It noted that the malfunction was not attributable to any lapse on the part of the aspirant and that the disruption had extended beyond a minor delay. The court reiterated that where a candidate’s legitimate expectation of a fair testing environment is thwarted by circumstances beyond his control, equitable relief in the form of a re-examination may be appropriate to preserve fairness.
Balancing these considerations, the High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be permitted to re-appear in the JEE examination under conditions that ensure parity with other candidates, subject to administrative feasibility. The court clarified that its order was confined to the specific circumstances of the case and should not be construed as a general directive in all instances of technical problems during exams, but rather as an acknowledgement that procedural fairness in competitive tests must accommodate exceptional cases where the integrity of a candidate’s attempt is compromised.
The judgment signals judicial recognition that fairness in competitive examinations extends beyond mere adherence to rules and schedules to encompass the psychological impact of disruptions on examinees. It reinforces the principle that in high-stakes testing environments, candidates must be afforded a fair opportunity to demonstrate their abilities free from avoidable technical impediments. The court’s order ensured that the petitioner’s academic prospects were not irreparably harmed by a circumstance that he could neither foresee nor control, thereby upholding the broader ethos of justice in educational assessment.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.