Delhi HC Refers 4 UGC-NET Answer-Key Questions To Experts Over Apparent Errors, Orders Hearing And Decision Within 3 Weeks

The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 challenging discrepancies in the provisional and final answer keys for UGC-NET June 2026.

The Court recorded the challenged questions and the respondents’ answers, including that the questions had been considered by subject experts.

Applying the distinction between academic disputes and apparent errors, the Court identified four questions for fresh expert consideration: Question IDs 4818042982, 4818042962, 4818048438 and 481804978.

Under Article 226, courts exercise limited review over expert determinations concerning examination answer keys and do not substitute their own academic assessment for that of subject experts.

In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, the Supreme Court held that a key answer is presumed correct unless it is clearly shown to be wrong—such that no reasonable body of persons well versed in the subject would regard it as correct—and not merely by inferential reasoning or rationalisation.

The Delhi High Court Division Bench applied that principle in Nandita v. National Testing Agency & Ors., LPA 782/2024, order dated 13 August 2024, while recognising that a demonstrably apparent error may warrant interference.

The Court declined to revisit questions involving academic opinion or inferential reasoning because the respondents stated that subject experts had examined them and no patent error was shown.

It distinguished four questions as presenting errors capable of objective verification from public-domain material and standard source texts, rather than matters on which experts could reasonably differ.

Because the Court would not itself determine the correct answers, it directed that the questions be reconsidered by subject experts.

The petitions were to be treated as representations; the expert committee was directed to consider them, hear the petitioners and issue a speaking order within three weeks.

Pending applications were also disposed of.