Introduction:

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court addressed a plea from candidates of the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Main 2025 who sought a re-examination after being delayed due to a traffic jam caused by the Chief Minister’s convoy. The petitioners argued that the unforeseen traffic congestion prevented them from reaching the examination center on time, thus denying them the opportunity to sit for the exam.

Arguments Presented:

Petitioners’ Perspective:

The petitioners contended that they were scheduled to appear for the second shift of the JEE Main on April 2, 2025, from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. However, at around 1:30 PM, the passage of the Chief Minister’s convoy led to a significant traffic jam, causing delays that prevented them from arriving at the examination center by the stipulated gate-closing time of 2:30 PM. They claimed to have reached the center at approximately 2:35 PM and requested entry, which was denied. Subsequent attempts to contact the National Testing Agency (NTA) for rescheduling were unsuccessful. The petitioners emphasized that the exam was conducted over multiple days and requested to be accommodated on an alternative date between April 4 and April 8, 2025.

Respondents’ Perspective:

Representing the NTA, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Shashank Bhasin, argued that the examination guidelines clearly instruct candidates to arrive at the center at least two hours before the commencement of the exam. He asserted that unforeseen circumstances, such as traffic jams, do not obligate the examination authority to reschedule or conduct a separate examination for affected candidates. The NTA maintained that adhering to the established protocols ensures fairness and uniformity in the examination process.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Jaspreet Singh, presiding over the case, acknowledged the unfortunate circumstances faced by the petitioners but emphasized the importance of adhering to examination protocols. The court noted that while the candidates had a legal right to appear for the examination, this right is conditional upon compliance with the instructions issued by the testing agency. The court stated that a writ of mandamus could not be issued in this scenario, as the case did not involve the denial of a legal right warranting judicial intervention. Consequently, the court dismissed the plea, upholding the NTA’s decision.