Introduction:

In the case titled Bharvad Meghankaben Nareshbhai vs National Testing Agency (NTA) Through Its Director General & Ors., the Gujarat High Court, through Justice Nirzar S. Desai, dismissed a writ petition filed by a NEET-UG 2025 aspirant who sought the reopening of the application window after failing to upload necessary documents before the deadline. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking a direction to the National Testing Agency (NTA) to reopen the NEET-UG 2025 application portal for a few more days, contending that she could not complete her registration due to non-availability of documents and technical server glitches. The plea also sought an interim stay on the examination process, including issuance of admit cards and declaration of results, until the petition was decided.

Arguments:

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that despite the petitioner’s genuine interest in appearing for NEET-UG 2025, her application could not be completed as she lacked required documents during the prescribed application window. He argued that technical glitches in the NTA server had compounded the problem, and such issues affected several students, not just the petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that the Court should intervene and direct the NTA to reopen the application portal in the interest of justice and fair opportunity.

In response, the counsel for NTA opposed the plea, pointing out that the application window for NEET-UG 2025 had closed on 07.03.2025. He highlighted that the NTA had already issued two separate public notices reminding candidates to complete their registration within the deadline. Relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Namrata Sanjay Sarkate Vs. The Union of India & Another, and the Supreme Court decision in Vanshika Yadav vs Union of India (2024), he asserted that reopening of the registration window could lead to manipulation and a possible compromise of the examination process. He urged the Court not to adopt a contrary approach and emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in such matters.

Judgement:

Upon examining the submissions and the record, Justice Desai noted that the petitioner did not establish an “exceptional case” warranting deviation from the prescribed norms. Even if the reasons given by the petitioner were accepted as true, the Court found that her failure to apply within time due to unavailable documents did not create any legal right to compel reopening of the portal. Furthermore, the Court underscored that merely being unable to submit an application does not entitle any candidate to judicial intervention unless the circumstances are truly exceptional. Referring to the Supreme Court’s caution in Vanshika Yadav, the Court observed that reopening the portal could hypothetically result in malpractice or raise suspicions about favoritism or lack of procedural integrity. Justice Desai concurred with the Bombay High Court’s stance that the sanctity and finality of the registration process should be maintained unless gross injustice or arbitrariness is shown. Since the petitioner’s plea lacked any such elements and was primarily based on routine difficulties, it did not merit intervention. Consequently, the Court held that no direction could be issued in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. The case reinforces the principle that courts are reluctant to interfere in administrative deadlines related to competitive examinations unless exceptional and compelling reasons are provided.