The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed two writ petitions challenging the digital evaluation of answer scripts by the MP Medical Science University of Jabalpur, noting that there was no significant change in the marks obtained through physical independent evaluations. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 217]

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal further recommended measures to the State Government and the Technological partner Mindlogicx Infra to enhance the system's transparency and effectiveness:

"that the nature and range of symbols, comment formats, and rubric structures be clearly described. The valuer should use symbols like [ ✅ ] for a correct answer or [❌] for a wrong answer; if he is not using a pen on a touch screen Tab/ Computer. We strongly recommend that the checking and valuations of digitally scanned answer sheets/ books be done by using a pen on a touch screen device, in the conventional way of checking, which will not create confusion in the minds of the students".

In the first writ petition 3091/2026, the petitioner, a second-year student of MSc Nursing, sought re-evaluation of her answer sheet in Psychiatric (Mental Health), contending that she was unexpectedly declared failed in the subject, having been awarded 20 marks out of 75.

Dissatisfied with the result, she applied for re-evaluation and also submitted a representation to the University authorities in November 2025, and sought a copy of her answer sheet under the Right to Information Act. She further approached the Vice Chancellor and Controller of the examination, seeking a fair assessment. She also lodged a complaint through the Chief Minister's helpline portal before filing this writ petition.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that she had answered all the questions correctly. It was further argued that she had correctly marked 5 questions, but no marks were awarded to her.

The University explained that they had adopted a suitable valuation system for theory examinations across all faculties by amending clause 60 of Ordinance 6/2024. For implementation of the process, the University had engaged Mindlogicx Infratech, a Bengaluru based techonology firm, through a formal agreement.

Under the system, answer sheets were scanned, and the first page containing information about the candidate was digitally masked to ensure anonymity. The scanned answer scripts are then independently evaluated by two different examiners through a digital platform. The higher of the two marks awarded is treated as canddiate's final score in the subject.

The bench, observing that the petitioner had accepted the University's evaluation methodology in all other subjects, noted that her challenge was confined to marks awarded in one subject. To verify the integrity of the evaluation process, the court sought a detailed affidavit from Mindlogicx, which clarified that it functions only as a technology provider and has no involvement in academic decisions, which remained under the University's control.

The court further directed the University to have her answer script reevaluated physically, which awarded her 23 marks out of 75.

Thus, the court held, "Therefore, there is no significant change even after the revaluation done by the University in compliance of the court order, hence no relief is liable to be given to the petitioner, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merit".

In the second petition 897/2026, the petitioner is a student of the BHMS course from a college affiliated with the concerned University, who claimed that he had appeared in the supplementary examination of the subject Organon of Medicine with Homoeopathic Philosophy, in which he obtained 94 marks in theory I and II and secured a total of 162 marks in the subject. His total aggregate marks were 873 out of 1500. He also applied under the RTI Act for certain answer sheets and claimed that certain answers were marked as correct but not awarded marks.

The court again ordered an independent re-evaluation and noted that the petitioner only received 42 marks, which was lower than the marks originally awarded. Therefore, the court found no merit in this petition either.

Thus, the court held that there was no flaw in the University's digital evaluation system and dismissed both the petitions with a cost of ₹5,000 on each petitioner to be paid to the University to cover the expenses incurred in the independent re-evaluation process.

Case Title: Premlata Tiwari v State of Madhya Pradesh, Amarjeet Bhardwaj v State WP 3091 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 217

For Premlata: Advocates Ankit Saxena and Ritik Sharma

For Amarjeet: Advocate Siddharth Shrivastava

For State: Government Advocate Ritwik Parashar

For Mindlogicx: Advocate Anurag Gohil

For University: Advocate Neeraj Singh Chauhan

Click here to read/download the Order