The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal of a CUET (UG) 2025 candidate, Ms. Sadhana Yadav, who missed her exam after arriving six minutes late at the examination centre. The Court upheld the National Testing Agency's (NTA) strict enforcement of gate-closing timings mentioned in the admit card, stating that discipline is essential in the conduct of large-scale entrance tests.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that Ms. Yadav reached the examination centre at 8:36 AM, while the gate had closed at 8:30 AM as clearly mentioned on the admit card. As a result, she missed three subjects scheduled for that session—English, Political Science, and General Aptitude.
“The CUET is an important entrance examination and the discipline in arriving at the examination hall in time, taking the seat in time and being at the centre before the gate closing time, are all part of the discipline and ethos of the examination ecosystem which ought not to be relaxed,” the Court emphasized.
Ms. Yadav had earlier approached the single-judge bench seeking another slot or a re-exam, arguing that clause 8.2 of the information bulletin did not explicitly prohibit entry after the gate-closing time and that minor delays due to traffic or transport issues should be considered sympathetically.
However, the Court held that the instructions in the admit card were binding and not contradictory to the information bulletin. It stated that the instructions gave sufficient clarity by allowing a 90-minute reporting window (7:00 AM to 8:30 AM) before the 9:00 AM exam.
“If exceptions are made and discipline is not followed in such an exam, the timely conduct of the exam, the timely announcement of results and timely admission to colleges and Universities is all likely to be jeopardised,” the Court added.
The bench also rejected arguments of discrimination due to varying enforcement of gate-closing rules at different centres. The Court said uniform application of rules is not a valid ground for a constitutional claim under Article 14, especially when the student has violated clear exam instructions.
“Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be applied to compare persons violating the rules of the examination. When students act contrary to the instructions of any given examination, such students cannot argue, inter se, discrimination,” the Court said.
It acknowledged the setback the student would face, especially as CUET scores are vital for university admissions, but maintained that any relaxation would be unfair to the lakhs of candidates who followed the rules.
Finally, the Court encouraged Ms. Yadav to pursue other entrance exams like the one conducted by GGSIPU, for which she had also applied, and dismissed the appeal without granting any relief.
Title: MS SADHANA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
