Kriti Lata(Minor) Through Her Father, Shri Amit Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr.

$~105
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 13.05.2026

+ W.P.(C) 6235/2026 & CM APPL. 30551/2026

KRITI LATA(MINOR) THROUGH HER FATHER, SHRI AMIT
KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Apoorv Sarvaria, Advocate
(DHCLSC) alongwith Ms Yashika Sarvaria, Ms
Khusboo Sharma, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal with Ms.
Disha Choudhary GP, Ms. Satvika Goyal, Mr.
Yash Basoya, Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advs. for R1
Mr. Sanjay Khanna (SC), Ms. Pragya Bhushan,
Ms. Vilakshana Dayma, Ms. Anshu Kumari,
Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Advs. for R2/NTA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

JASMEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
the India seeking that the petitioner be permitted to complete
registration process and be able to appear in the Common University
Entrance Test (“ CUET UG ”) 2026 Examination scheduled to be
conducted from 11.05.2026 to 31.05.2026.
2. The brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner is a minor and is
represented through her father and natural guardian. The petitioner to
get admission in undergraduate courses in Indian universities applied
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.05.2026
21:28:53
W.P.(C) 6235/2026 Page 1 of 7

for CUET UG conducted by the National Testing Agency (“ NTA ”)
i.e., respondent No. 2. The CUET UG Examinations, 2026 are
scheduled to be conducted from 11.05.2026 to 31.05.2026 and online
application for its registration was initially open from 03.01.2026 to
30.01.2026, which was subsequently extended from 23.02.2026 to
26.02.2026.
3. The petitioner applied for the registration on 27.01.2026 and
completed the application process and paid the requisite fee of
Rs.1,800/- on 27.01.2026 itself and as per the petitioner at the time of
payment, the portal reflected a “payment successful” and no message,
alert or email was sent. It was only on 05.04.2026, that the petitioner
logged into the portal and found out that her application is marked as
incomplete due to non-payment. On verification, it was found out that
the payment amount of Rs. 1,800/- was refunded/ got bounced back to
the account on 29.01.2026 and the went unnoticed by the petitioner/
her father due to being a small amount.
4. Consequently, the petitioner made representation dated 08.04.2026 to
the respondent No. 2 seeking resolution of her application and also
informed the respondent No. 1 about submission of her application
and the technical glitch and requested to allow her to complete the
application and repay the fee amount. However, the same was not
responded.
5. Hence, the present petition.
6. Mr. Khanna, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 2/NTA,
opposes the petition and states that the timelines are sacrosanct and
are meant to be scrupulously followed and the timelines given in the
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.05.2026
21:28:53
W.P.(C) 6235/2026 Page 2 of 7

Information Bulletin are peremptory norms.
7. The petitioner had ample opportunity to complete the application and
submit the fees during the extension periods and petitioner’s fault/
negligence cannot be constructed as breach of fundamental right. He
further states that CUET UG Examinations process is a complex one
and accommodating petitioner at this stage could not only disturb the
entire management of the examination but would also lead to
discrimination against 315 applicants who approached respondent
No.2/NTA to re-open the fee payment window and also against 4,251
applicants who approached respondent No.2/NTA for the re-opening
of application window with payment window. Further, in entrance
examination, like CUET UG, personal hardship or abstract
considerations of sympathies should not be considered.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
9. In the present case, the bank statement of petitioner’s father through
which the payment was made shows that the payment was made by
the petitioner on 27.01.2026 and an amount of Rs. 1,800/- was also
deducted from the bank account on 27.01.2026. While it is true that
bank statement also shows that the said payment was refunded on
29.01.2026, however, the fact remains that the petitioner completed
the registration from her side by making the payment in due time on
27.01.2026. The non-payment of fee due to bounce back of amount
after 2 days is not on account of petitioner’s personal fault and the
same cannot be attributed to the petitioner, at best it can only be
termed as a technical irregularity.
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.05.2026
21:28:53
W.P.(C) 6235/2026 Page 3 of 7

10. The petitioner though should have been cautious with respect to her
application form and should have revisited the portal to confirm the
registration, but the fact that the petitioner did pay the application
form fee within the timeline cannot be ignored and bounce back of the
said amount cannot be said to be the fault of the petitioner.
11. Additionally, in order/judgment dated 01.04.2026 in W.P.(C)
3859/2026 titled as “Aarush Jain vs. National Testing Agency And
Anr.” I have already taken a view that mere technical irregularity
cannot restrain a candidate from perusing her/his educational dreams.
The relevant paragraphs from the said order/judgment reads as under:-
“16. In the present case, the payment receipt shows that the
payment was made by the petitioner and the transaction status
was reflected as “success”. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.
1015.34/- was also deducted from the bank account of the
petitioner’s father on 03.02.2026. Hence, the non-payment is not
on account of petitioner’s fault and the same cannot be attributed
to the petitioner, at best it can only be termed as a technical
irregularity.
17. The fact which is vehemently contended by the respondent
No. 1 to oppose the present petition, that the confirmation page
was not generated is also to my mind a procedural irregularity.
18. A perusal of the petition also shows that when a candidate
applies for JEE (Main) – 2026 Session-1, an application number
is generated. It is the same application number which is carried
through to the second session and only on payment of fee for
Session-2, the petitioner becomes eligible to appear in the
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.05.2026
21:28:53
W.P.(C) 6235/2026 Page 4 of 7

Session-2 of the said examination. The application number
remains same for both the sessions.
19. The petitioner though should have been cautious with respect
to his application form and should have seen the generation of a
confirmation page, but the fact that the petitioner had duly paid
the application form fee, even though the same was not credited
to the respondent’s account, cannot be said to be the fault of the
petitioner.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment titled Farzana
Batool v. Union of India, (2024) 15 SCC 818, has made the
following categorical observations with respect to the right to
pursue higher education:
“10. Given that the issue raised in this case concerns access to
education, albeit at the professional level, we would like to
take this opportunity to underscore the importance of creating
an enabling environment to make it possible for students such
as the petitioners to pursue professional education. While the
right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been
spelt out as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution,
it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not
a governmental largesse. Instead, the State has an affirmative
obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels .”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. In this view of the matter, the Court under this extraordinary
jurisdiction is required to ensure substantive justice, a mere
procedural or technical irregularity cannot defeat the notion of
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.05.2026
21:28:53
W.P.(C) 6235/2026 Page 5 of 7

substantive justice which leans in favour of the petitioner
especially when the right to pursue higher/professional education
of the petitioner is at stake. The petitioner in this situation when
he is not at fault cannot be left in the lurch and cannot be
penalized for no fault attributable to him.
xxxxxxxx
24. I am of the view, that logistical issues as highlighted by the
learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, cannot take precedence
or come in the way of giving an opportunity to a candidate in
participating in an examination as important such as JEE, which
is a dream for a lot of students in our Country. The same would
not only result in penalization of the candidate when he is not at
fault but also would result in defeating the right of the
petitioner.”
12. The said order/judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court vide order/judgment dated 06.04.2026 in LPA
No. 209/2026 , wherein the paragraph No. 15 reads as under: -
“15. The stand of the Appellant that unless the Confirmation
Page is generated, the application remained incomplete is
correct, however, when Respondent No. 1 had already made the
payment of fee, which was remitted back to his father’s bank
account after two days, no fault of Respondent No. 1 can be
found. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has rightly
exercised the writ jurisdiction to ensure substantive justice.
Respondent No. 1 cannot be denied an opportunity to participate
in the examination on a procedural or a technical irregularity,
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.05.2026
21:28:53
W.P.(C) 6235/2026 Page 6 of 7

which can be rectified by the Appellant by permitting Respondent
No. 1 to make the payment of the fee.”
13. To my mind, the petitioner has a prima facie case as in the present
factual matrix, the petitioner is not blocking a seat of any candidate
nor is getting any unfair advantage over any student. At this
preliminary stage of the process, the oversight/ the mistake of the
petitioner, will only cause administrative disturbance, if any, to
respondent No. 2/NTA.

14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the respondents shall take
every necessary step to facilitate the petitioner to participate in the
CUET UG Examination scheduled on any of the scheduled dates and
center convenient to the respondents by giving a notice 24 hours prior
in writing to the petitioner.
15. The procedural formalities shall also be completed by the petitioner
immediately.
16. The counter-affidavit handed over in Court today is taken on record.





JASMEET SINGH, J
MAY 13, 2026/ms
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.05.2026
21:28:53
W.P.(C) 6235/2026 Page 7 of 7