New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain, in its present form, a plea seeking directions to scrap the National Testing Agency (NTA) and initiate an investigation into alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG re-examination, observing that the petition combined individual grievances with reliefs sought in the larger public interest.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing the plea, which had been transferred from another court and was being treated as a public interest litigation (PIL).
The petition raised grievances concerning the conduct and outcome of the re-NEET examination and sought relief not only for the petitioner but also for candidates who appeared in the re-examination. Among the prayers was a demand for action against the NTA and an inquiry into the allegations of discrepancies, including alleged tampering with OMR sheets.
The Bench, however, took objection to the manner in which the reliefs had been clubbed together.
“From a perusal of the prayer clause, we find that it is a mixed bunch of prayers made seeking relief in respect of the petitioner and also all candidates who appeared in re-NEET exams,” the Court observed.
The High Court said a writ petition containing such a mixture of personal and public prayers could not be entertained in that form.
The proceedings also witnessed a detailed response from the Centre and the NTA. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government and the testing agency, opposed the allegations of malpractice and discrepancies in the re-examination.
Mehta denied that there had been any malpractice in the conduct of the re-NEET examination and also disputed the allegation of tampering with OMR sheets.
The petitioners, represented by advocate Abhisht Hela, thereafter sought liberty to withdraw the matter and approach the High Court through appropriately framed proceedings.
Hela told the Bench that the petition would be withdrawn and that separate proceedings would be filed–one dealing with the individual grievances of the concerned candidates and another PIL seeking institutional reforms in the manner in which public examinations such as NEET are conducted.
The counsel’s submission effectively sought to separate the personal reliefs from the broader issues concerning examination reforms and accountability.
The High Court allowed the request and disposed of the petition as withdrawn, permitting the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies separately.
The order, therefore, did not adjudicate upon the allegations of malpractice, OMR-sheet tampering or other alleged discrepancies raised in the petition. The Court’s decision was confined to the maintainability and manner in which the reliefs had been combined in the present petition.
