Disposed

Sanyam Goyal v. National Testing Agency & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8972/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A candidate who disclosed his name in the concept note at the NIFTEE-2026 situation test was disqualified for unfair means. The court held this was a procedural lapse, not unfair means under the 2024 Act, and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of holding the conduct was procedural impropriety, not unfair means; no other relief granted.

Sanyam Goyal Vs National Testing Agency & Ors. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~169

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8972/2026, CM APPL. 42001/2026 SANYAM GOYAL

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Appearance not given versus NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ORS.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Ms. Vanshika Singh , Advocates, for R2/NIFT Mr. Sanjay Khanna, SC for NTA

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 17.07.2026

¶9

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶10

“(i) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a Mandamus quashing or setting aside the Show Cause Notice No.: F. No. DD1027/ 37/2025-AESW-A (10966) issued by Respondent No. 1 on 02.06.2026 against the Petitioner as well as his subsequent Disqualification on 23.06.2026, and, (ii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Concept Note/Model submitted by the Petitioner in the Situation Test of NIFTEE 2026, in a time bound manner, and

¶11

(iii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to participate in the counselling sessions for admission to the Respondent No. 2 institution for the upcoming Academic Year

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:35:33

¶14

2026-2027, scheduled to be held on 11.07.2026, if he is assessed to have made the NIFT admission shortlist after due consideration.”

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has cleared class 12^th and thereafter appeared for stage I of NIFTEE examination conducted by respondent No. 1 further qualifying in stage I of NIFTEE and was shortlisted for appearing in stage II, i.e, the situation test conducted by the respondent No. 2. Pursuantly, the petitioner on 26.04.2026 appeared for stage II of the NIFTEE examination.

¶16

As per the documents on record, the petitioner disclosed his name in the concept note which was contrary to the terms and conditions of the Information Bulletin as well as instructions issued to the candidates. 4. Thereafter in this light, the petitioner’s result for stage II was not evaluated and the petitioner was declared disqualified. Further, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2026 was issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner to which the petitioner responded and consequently, the following order was passed:-

¶17

“Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee Constituted for Examination of UFM Cases in respect of NIFTEE- 2026 Stage- 2 (UG Programmes)

¶18

The Committee noted t hat a total of 08 cases had been reported by the Evaluators where in the candidates had disclosed their identity and/or other identifying particulars on the write-up sheets and/or models, contrary to the examination instructions. The matter was subsequently placed before the Result Committee, which decided that Show Cause Notices be

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:35:33

¶21

issued to the concerned candidates before taking a final decision.

¶22

The Committee examined the replies received from the candidates along with the relevant write up sheets, evaluation records and other examination documents. Upon examination of the records, the Committee found that the observations recorded by the Evaluators were correct and supported by the available examination material/Observer Comment Sheet or Write up Sheet of Candidate clearly showing the name and/or Roll No. The Committee also found that the replies submitted by the candidates did not warrant any deviation from the findings of the Evaluators.

¶23

Accordingly, the Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Evaluators and recommended that all the aforesaid 08 candidates be treated as UFM cases and declared DISQUALIFIED in NIFTEE-2026. No result/rank may be declared for these candidates and their result status may be reflected as "DISQUALIFIED" in the result records and score cards.

¶24

Candidates with the following BARCODES may be declared

¶25

as DISQUALIFIED

¶26

Sl.	Centre	BarCode
No.
1	Patna	528017
2	Delhi	794536

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:35:33

¶28

3	Delhi	725869
4	Delhi	169475
5	Delhi	245397
6	Bhubaneswar	285164
7	Hyderabad	803156
8	Varanasi	291480
S.No.	Name	Signature
1	Prof (JR) NOOPUR ANAND	Sd/-
2	Prof (DR)RUBY KASHYAP SOO	D Sd/-
3	DR. VIJAY KUMAR DUA	Sd/-

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that the findingthat the act of the petitioner is to be treated under ‘Unfair Means’ needs to be removed. Furthermore, the Information Bulletin does not describe unfair means

¶30

As per Clause No. 10.1.1 of the NIFTEE-2026 Information Bulletin and the examination guidelines, it has been categorically stated that the candidates are not to disclose their identity or else they shall be disqualified. Since, the petitioner has done so, to my mind the petitioner has violated the terms of the Information Bulletin and the guidelines given to the candidate.

¶31

The same clearly is a procedural impropriety. However, the declaration of the petitioner using unfair means is rather harsh. My reasons for saying so is that the Public Examination Prevention of Unfair Means Act, 2024 (“ the Act ”) describe unfair means as under:-

¶32

“CHAPTER II

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:35:33

¶35

UNFAIR MEANS AND OFFENSES

¶36

3) The unfair means relating to the conduct of a public examination shall include any act or omission done or caused to be done by any person or group of persons or institutions, and include but not be restricted to, any of the following acts for monetary or wrongful gain---

¶37

(i) leakage of question paper or answer key or part thereof; (ii) participating in collusion with others to effect leakage of question paper or answer key;

¶38

(iii) accessing or taking possession of question paper or an Optical Mark Recognition response sheet without authority;

¶39

(iv) providing solution to one or more questions by any unauthorised person during a public examination;

¶40

(v) directly or indirectly assisting the candidate in any manner unauthorisedly in the public examination;

¶41

(vi) tampering with answer sheets including Optical Mark Recognition response sheets;

¶42

(vii) altering the assessment except to correct a bona fide error without any authority;

¶43

(viii) wilful violation of norms or standards set up by the Central Government for conduct of a public examination on its own or through its agency;

¶44

(ix) tampering with any document necessary for short-listing of candidates or finalising the merit or rank of a candidate in a public examination;

¶45

(x) deliberate violation of security measures to facilitate unfair

¶46

This is a digitally signed order.

¶47

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:35:33

¶48

means in conduct of a public examination;

¶49

(xi) tampering with the computer network or a computer resource or a computer system;

¶50

(xii) manipulation in seating arrangements, allocation of dates and shifts for the candidates to facilitate adopting unfair means in examinations;

¶51

(xiii) threatening the life, liberty or wrongfully restraining persons associated with the public examination authority or the service provider or any authorised agency of the Government; or obstructing the conduct of a public examination;

¶52

(xiv) creation of fake website to cheat or for monetary gain; and (xv) conduct of fake examination, issuance of fake admit cards or offer letters to cheat or for monetary gain.”

¶53

In my view, the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act which lays down as to what conduct can be categorised as unfair means but no doubt the petitioner has not followed the procedural instructions in its entire term.

¶54

Since, the petitioner has not followed the terms in its entirety, the same is a procedural lapse on his part, the petitioner’s case is not of the use of unfair means, but a case of procedural impropriety.

¶55

No other relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. 11. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶56

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶57

JULY 17, 2026/JK

¶58

This is a digitally signed order.

¶59

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:35:33

Sanyam Goyal v. National Testing Agency & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanyam Goyal v. National Testing Agency & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shakeel Ahmad Burney

Ratinder Nath Abrol Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Union of India & Ors. Vs Jitender

Suraj Bhan Vs the P.O., D.T.C.

Jagdish Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Hairsh Kumar Gulati Vs . Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (Dusib) & Anr.

Ghalib Memorial Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Shravan Kumar Vs Max Super Speciality Hospital & Ors.

Sh. Madan Lal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raja Rajeshwari Institute of Medical Sciences Girls Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jayalakshmi T Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sachin Arora Vs Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.

Sks Medical College Vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Naveen Kumar Karta HUF & Anr. Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.