0
0
Chennai, June 7, 2025 — The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a re-examination of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET UG) 2025, citing that any such move would unfairly impact over 22 lakh candidates who appeared for the exam nationwide.
The petition, filed by a group of NEET aspirants, alleged that their examination at the PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya CRPF-Avadi centre in Chennai was severely disrupted due to a power outage caused by heavy rainfall and inadequate management. The students claimed they had to write the exam under poor lighting conditions, with rainwater entering the exam hall and no compensatory time provided.
However, Justice C Kumarappan, presiding over the case, referred to a report by the National Testing Agency (NTA). The NTA’s investigation concluded that although there was a brief power outage, the examination halls remained sufficiently illuminated by natural daylight, and the school authorities had arranged for power backup. The report further stated that the performance of candidates was not adversely affected.
The Additional Solicitor General, representing the NTA, emphasized that the exam was conducted during daylight hours (2:00 PM to 5:00 PM), and any re-examination based on such grounds would disrupt the level playing field for more than two million candidates across India.
Justice Kumarappan agreed with this assessment, stating, “If any re-examination is permitted on trivial grounds, the same would seriously affect the level playing field of around 22 lakh candidates.” The court found no evidence of malice or procedural lapses in the NTA’s handling of the situation.
Previously, the Madras High Court had granted an interim stay on the NEET UG 2025 results for the affected centre, pending investigation. Following the NTA’s field verification, which included input from the Centre Superintendent, City Coordinator, NTA-appointed observers, and invigilators, the court found no compelling reason to order a re-exam.
The plea was ultimately dismissed, with the court reiterating that the interests of the larger group of candidates must be prioritized over isolated incidents unless clear evidence of widespread injustice is presented.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on information reported by Medical Dialogues on June 7, 2025. For full details and the official court order, readers are encouraged to consult the original source: Medical Dialogues Article. The summary provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
