[JEE Mains] Sympathy Can't Substitute Prescribed Eligibility Criteria For IIT Admissions: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that sympathy or possible academic hardship cannot substitute the prescribed eligibility criteria for admission to the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs).

Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a plea moved by a JEE aspirant seeking admission to IIT Delhi on the basis of alleged errors in the evaluation of her JEE Main 2025 examination.

The Court observed that the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot devise an alternative mode of admission outside the governing examination and admission framework merely on the basis of alleged hardship.

“…. mere sympathy or individual hardship cannot furnish a basis for directing an academic authority to depart from the governing rules or standards,” the Court said.

It added: “The Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner seeks preservation of an academic opportunity which, according to her, was lost on account of circumstances beyond her control. However, sympathy or the possibility of an academic loss cannot substitute for satisfaction of the eligibility requirements prescribed for admission to the IITs. The Court is required to apply the governing framework uniformly, unless a legally sustainable basis for deviation therefrom is established.”

The petitioner candidate- Ashi Agarwal, had appeared in JEE Main 2025 and alleged discrepancies in the evaluation of five questions.

She claimed that certain marks had been wrongly withheld and that had the errors been corrected, she would have obtained the percentile required to qualify for JEE Advanced.

She also challenged her exclusion from JEE Main 2025 Session II, alleging that she had reached the examination centre before the gate-closing time but was not permitted to enter. The candidate thus sought a direction for her admission to IIT Delhi by creating a supernumerary seat.

The Court, however, noted that the relief sought involved a chain of contingencies—starting from an assumption of incorrect evaluation, followed by a corresponding increase in marks and percentile, qualification for JEE Advanced and ultimately admission to an IIT.

“Such a chain of contingencies cannot furnish the foundation for a mandatory direction for admission to an IIT,” the Court observed.

It further held that writ jurisdiction is not appellate in nature and that it would not ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, particularly where the dispute involves technical expertise.

It observed that the petitioner's allegations concerning NTA's electronic audit logs, evaluation of answers, marks and the computation of a hypothetical percentile would require factual and technical examination.

The Court also rejected the petitioner's claim for admission to the 2026 academic session on the basis of her JEE Main 2025 performance.

It noted that under the eligibility criteria for JEE Advanced 2026, a candidate was required to have first appeared for the Class XII examination in either 2025 or 2026 and that the petitioner did not satisfy the mandatory eligibility criterion.

On the plea for creation of a supernumerary seat, the Court noted that IIT admissions operate within a structured, merit-based framework involving eligibility criteria, thresholds, attempts and a defined number of seats.

“Creation of a supernumerary seat, particularly in a highly competitive and merit-based admission process, cannot be treated as an ordinary consequential relief flowing from the filing of a writ petition,” the Court said.

“In these circumstances, the petitioner now seeks admission to a seat in the 2026 academic session on the basis of the result of an examination undertaken in 2025. In my view, such a relief cannot be granted, as the result of JEE (Main) 2025 cannot form the basis for admission to the subsequent academic session in 2026,” it added.