NEET-UG 2026: AP High Court Denies Relief To Students Who Missed Application Deadline, Says No Interference On 'Humanitarian Grounds'

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a plea to reopen application portal for NEET-UG 2026 or permit submission of applications through an alternate mode, holding that timelines given in public notice and information bulletin must be strictly adhered to wherein intereference cannot be made on humanitaran grounds. 

The Court noted that the petitioners' applications were admittedly not filed within the deadline, and their reliance on a third-person to submit the application forms did not excuse their failure to verify submission. It held that no relief could be granted on grounds of hardship, as permitting late applications would disrupt the examination process and affect its sanctity.

A division bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya was considering a writ petition filed by students seeking a direction to reopen the NEET-UG 2026 application window or to permit submission of applications through an alternate mode.

"It is a settled position that timelines stipulated in advertisement/public notice/information bulletin must be strictly adhered to and no modification therein is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India...It is equally well settled that though there might be some hardship caused to the student/candidate, interference cannot be made on humanitarian grounds. In this respect, gainful reference can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. G. Hemalathaa and another 1 . It is further to be noted that any intervention by this Court at this stage may impinge upon the sanctity of the examination. Learned counsel for petitioners is unable to point out any ground which calls for interference by us at this stage. No other argument was raised". 

The case of the petitioners was that they were students pursuing intermediate education and had relied upon a computer/DTP operator associated with the college for submission of their applications for competitive examinations.

It was stated that the said person had earlier assisted students in successfully submitting applications, and therefore, the petitioners and their parents had trusted him and deposited the necessary amounts.

However, it later came to light that he had fraudulently collected money and failed to submit the applications. The issue surfaced when certain students were issued fake hall tickets for another examination, following which a criminal complaint was lodged. The petitioners submitted that they became aware of the non-submission of their applications only thereafter and sought relief from the Court.

The petitioners contended that they are innocent students and should not be deprived of the opportunity to participate in NEET UG 2026 for no fault of theirs. It was argued that permitting submission of their applications would not cause prejudice to other candidates.

On the other hand, the respondents submitted that online applications were invited within the stipulated time, which was extended up to 11.03.2026, and detailed instructions were issued mandating strict compliance. It was contended that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to ensure submission of their applications within the prescribed period and that they failed to verify the same.

It was further submitted that the examination process had reached an advanced stage and any relaxation at this stage would destabilize the entire process involving a large number of candidates.

The  Court held that it is an admitted position that the petitioners' applications were not submitted within the stipulated time, despite clear instructions mandating strict compliance and warning of rejection in case of default.

It observed that the petitioners, having relied on a third person to submit their application forms, failed to verify whether the same had been duly filed. The Court reiterated that timelines prescribed in such examinations must be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.

It further held that mere hardship cannot be a ground for interference, particularly when the examination process has already advanced, and any indulgence at this stage would impinge upon its sanctity. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Case Title: Mahesh Gaddam & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10859 of 2026

Counsel for Petitioners: Ms. G. Mounika appearing for Mr. Vinod Kumar Pemmasani

Counsel for Respondents: Additional Solicitor General of India, GP for Higher Education, Mr. Y.V. Anil Kumar, Central Government Counsel, and Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar S.

Click Here To Read/Download Order