Vrinda Goel Vs National Testing Agency (Nta)

¶1

$~41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 23.04.2026

¶4

W.P.(C) 5512/2026 & CM APPL. 27020/2026 VRINDA GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Bajaj and Ms. Sarah, Advocates.

¶5

versus NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Ms. Vilakshana Dayma, Ms. Anshu Kumari and Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

¶7

TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )

¶8

The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking, inter alia, direction to the Respondent for forthwith declaring the Petitioner’s JEE-Mains result.

¶9

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that:

¶10

2.1 The Petitioner is a person with 55% Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ ASD ”) as per her disability certificate and Unique Disability ID (“ UDID ”). The Petitioner attempted to register for JEE-Mains Session 2 Examination however, the system did not accept the disability certificated dated 07.01.2026 issued to the Petitioner as the Petitioner had registered as a General category candidate for JEE-Mains Session 1 Examination in November, 2025 as she did not have the disability certificate at that time.

¶11

W.P.(C) 5512/2026

¶12

Page 1 of 7

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.04.2026 10:38:45

¶15

2.2 The Petitioner was not successful in changing the status of her candidature for JEE-Mains Session 2 Examination from General category to Persons with Disabilities (“ PwD ”) status. Accordingly, the Petitioner visited the Respondent’s exam centre, however, the officials of the Respondent refused to cooperate and were insensitive about the Petitioner’s disability.

¶16

2.3 Therefore, the Petitioner approached the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (“ CCPD ”) through email dated 28.02.2026 and vide complaint dated 07.03.2026. The CCPD conducted a hearing on 18.03.2026, wherein the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner had initially registered for General category with no PwD status and because the disability certificate was a manual paper-based document rather than a UDID card, the Respondent was required to perform due diligence to verify its authenticity. The Respondent further submitted before CCPD that it had sent emails to the CMO’s office and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (“ DEPwD ”) on 16.03.2026. It was assured by the Respondent that the Petitioner’s category would be manually updated from ‘General’ to ‘General-PwD’ immediately upon receiving confirmation of the disability certificate’s genuineness.

¶17

2.4 Vide order dated 25.03.2026, CCPD directed the Respondent to complete the verification process within a week. In the meantime, the Petitioner obtained UDID, which was sent to the Respondent vide email dated 23.03.2026.

¶18

W.P.(C) 5512/2026

¶19

Page 2 of 7

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.04.2026 10:38:45

¶22

2.5 On 30.03.2026, the Petitioner was issued an admit card erroneously indicating her disability as being less than 40%, which was not in line with the disability certificate and UDID. Accordingly, the Petitioner sent an email dated 31.03.2026 seeking rectification of the admit card.

¶23

2.6 On 01.04.2026, i.e. on the previous date of the Examination, the Petitioner was issued an admit card indicating 55% ASD. Accordingly, the Petitioner sat for the JEE-Mains Examination on 02.04.2026.

¶24

2.7 On 20.04.2026, the result of the Petitioner was withheld with a vague and cryptic remark ‘Result Later’. Therefore, the Petitioner wrote an email dated 20.04.2026 to enquire about the withholding of her result, however, there was no response.

¶25

2.8 The registration process for JEE-Advanced Examination commenced on 23.04.2026 and will conclude on 02.05.2026.

¶26

2.9 Hence, the Petitioner filed the present Petition seeking the direction to the Respondent for declaring the Petitioner’s result for JEE-Mains Examination within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner’s result cannot be withheld without any justification as the Respondent cannot act in an arbitrary manner in absence of any wrongdoing by the Petitioner that would warrant the withholding of her result. Further, the Petitioner is kept in dark and not given any justification or an opportunity of hearing for withholding her result.

¶28

W.P.(C) 5512/2026

¶29

Page 3 of 7

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.04.2026 10:38:45

¶32

It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent has completed all the verification steps and only upon conclusion of the same, the admit card was issued to the Petitioner on 01.04.2026. Therefore, the Petitioner’s disability was beyond doubt. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that if the result is not declared, the Petitioner will not be able to register for JEE-Advanced Examination, which may result in causing grave prejudice to her.

¶33

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after filing the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has received an email dated 22.04.2026, which states as under:

¶34

“The NTA has successfully conducted the JEE (Main)-2026 Session 2 from 02 to 08 April 2026 at different Centres located in various cities throughout the country and 15 cities outside India.

¶35

This is with reference to change of sub-category from General/OBC/EWS to PwD for JEE (Main) 2026 Session 2.

¶36

A PwD Committee meeting has been scheduled on 23 April 2026 from 03:15 PM onwards to review and verify the disability certificate(s)/UDID cards.

¶37

You are therefore, requested to make yourself available for the online meeting at the scheduled time and to remain present in the meeting lobby until your turn, if required by the Committee.

¶38

The meeting link will be shared separately accordingly.”

¶39

A copy of the above email was handed over during the course of hearing and was directed to be taken on record.

¶40

As per this email, the Petitioner was called upon to attend an online meeting on 23.04.2026 at 03:15pm before the PwD Committee of the Respondent for review and verification of the disability certificate(s) / UDID cards. Accordingly, the matter was passed over and taken up at 04:30pm.

¶41

W.P.(C) 5512/2026

¶42

Page 4 of 7

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.04.2026 10:38:45

¶45

When the matter was again taken up at 04:30pm, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner appeared before the PwD Committee of the Respondent and provided the clarifications sought.

¶46

The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that as per Clause 4.2.4(5) of the Information Bulletin for JEE-Mains Examination, the benefit of reservation is granted to the candidates subject to verification of documents and if it is discovered at any stage that a candidate has used a false / fake / incorrect document or has furnished false, incorrect or incomplete information, in order to avail the benefit of reservation, then such a candidate shall be excluded from all admission processes. It is further provided in Clause 4.2.4(5) that in case such a candidate has already been given admission, the admission shall stand cancelled.

¶47

It was further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that Clause 5.5.3 of the Information Bulletin for JEE-Mains Examination provides that the result of JEE-Mains Examination will be cancelled and will not be declared for the candidates, who indulge in Unfair Means Practices. Accordingly, the Respondent is entitled to withhold the result of the Petitioner until the verification of the documents submitted by the Petitioner.

¶48

The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the UDID card issued to the Petitioner contains mark ‘T’, which indicates that the said disability is temporary in nature and, therefore, UDID requires further examination. 12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that ASD disability is curable and, therefore, the UDID has been issued only for 5 years by mentioning mark ‘T’ on UDID, however that does not make UDID invalid, and the Respondent has wrongly put the result of the Petitioner in abeyance.

¶49

W.P.(C) 5512/2026

¶50

Page 5 of 7

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.04.2026 10:38:45

¶53

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent, it is observed that the Respondent had issued the Admit Card to the Petitioner after receipt of UDID. Further, the Petitioner has already appeared before the PwD Committee of the Respondent for verification of UDID card.

¶54

Clauses 4.2.4(5) and 5.5.3 of the Information Bulletin for JEE-Mains Examination provide for cancellation of the result as well as admission in case a candidate in case the candidate it is discovered at any stage that a candidate has used a false / fake / incorrect document or has furnished false, incorrect or incomplete information or indulged in Unfair Means Practices. 15. The Respondent has not found any such instance with the Petitioner and, therefore, there is no justification for withholding the result of the Petitioner. The Respondent already has power to take recourse, if it is found that the Petitioner has used a false / fake / incorrect document or provided false or incorrect information and has indulged in Unfair Means Practices by cancelling the result or the admission, as the case may be. Therefore, reasons provided for withholding of the result of the Petitioner by the Respondent on the ground of verification of the documents and the UDID card being temporary are unsustainable and cannot be accepted as the verification of the documents is already carried out and the Respondent cannot question the UDID card issued by Government of India. If the Respondent finds at any stage that the documents submitted by the Petitioner were fake, incomplete or not genuine or the Petitioner had indulged in Unfair Means Practices, the Petitioner is entitled to take action for cancellation of the Result and Admission, if already granted, of the Petitioner. Hence, no prejudice would

¶55

W.P.(C) 5512/2026

¶56

Page 6 of 7

¶57

Signature Not Verified

¶58

Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.04.2026 10:38:45

¶59

be caused to the Petitioner if the result of the Petitioner is declared subject to the verification of the documents submitted by the Petitioner. However, if the result is not declared in time and if the Petitioner is successful in examination and all documents submitted by the Petitioner are found to be genuine, the Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss as she would not be able to participate in JEE-Advanced Examination, for which the last date for registration is on 02.05.2026.

¶60

Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to forthwith declare the result of the Petitioner latest by 06:00 pm on 27.04.2026. In case the Respondent finds any discrepancy in the documents after verification or it is found that the Petitioner has indulged in Unfair Means Practices, the Respondent is at liberty to take action in accordance with Clauses 4.2.4(5) and 5.5.3 of the Information Bulletin for JEE-Mains Examination. Needless to observe that if any such action is taken by the Respondent after declaring the result of the Petitioner, all rights and contentions of the Petitioner to seek remedy against any such action, as may be available to the Petitioner in accordance with law, are kept open.

¶61

In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the Respondent to declare / publish the result of the Petitioner for JEE-Mains Session 2 Examination conducted on 02.04.2026 by 06:00 pm on 27.04.2026. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

The Petition and the pending Application stand disposed of.

¶63

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶64

APRIL 23, 2026/sms

¶65

W.P.(C) 5512/2026

¶66

Page 7 of 7

¶67

Signature Not Verified

¶68

Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.04.2026 10:38:45

Vrinda Goel v. National Testing Agency (Nta)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vrinda Goel v. National Testing Agency (Nta)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Dr. Raman Mahindra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naresh Khorwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Rashtriya Nirbal Uthan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

Guru Nanak Public School Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Laxmi Narain. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sonya Surbhi Gupta Vs Jamia Millia Islamia

Msa Global Llc (Oman) Vs Engineering Projects (India) Limited

Kalyani Devi Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Lata Gupta and Anr. Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Ramesh Rani & Anr. Vs D.D.A.

Ram Deni Singh Jagdish Singh Memorial Samiti Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Panchsil Mahila Ptc College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.