Technical Irregularity in Fee Payment Cannot Defeat a Candidate’s Right to Pursue Higher Education

In brief

The question

1. Whether a candidate can be barred from appearing in a national entrance examination due to a technical irregularity in fee payment when the initial transaction was attempted within the prescribed timeline.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that substantive justice favors the Petitioner where no fault is personally attributable to them.

It also directed

The Respondents were directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate the Petitioner's participation in the CUET UG 2026 examination at a convenient center; the Petitioner be given 24 hours' prior written notice of the examination date and mandated the immediate completion of all remaining procedural formalities by the Petitioner.

01Facts

The Petitioner, a minor pursuing undergraduate admissions, applied for the CUET UG 2026 examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA).

p. 2, 3

She completed the registration and paid the fee of Rs. 1,800 on 27.01.2026, receiving a "payment successful" notification on the portal.

p. 2, 3

However, unknown to the Petitioner, the payment was refunded/bounced back on 29.01.2026.

p. 3

Upon discovering the "incomplete" status on 05.04.2026, she made representations to the Respondents which went unanswered.

p. 3

The NTA opposed the petition, arguing that timelines are sacrosanct, the process is complex, and granting relief would discriminate against thousands of other applicants who missed deadlines.

p. 2, 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a candidate can be barred from appearing in a national entrance examination due to a technical irregularity in fee payment when the initial transaction was attempted within the prescribed timeline.

p. 3, 4

ii.2. Whether the right to pursue higher education can be defeated by procedural or logistical considerations of the testing agency.

p. 5, 6

03Law Applied

The court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure substantive justice.

p. 1, 5

It relied on the precedent Aarush Jain vs. National Testing Agency And Anr. (W.P.(C) 3859/2026), which held that technical irregularities should not restrain educational dreams.

p. 4

Furthermore, it cited the Supreme Court decision in Farzana Batool v. Union of India (2024) 15 SCC 818, which established that the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to professional education, as it is not a "governmental largesse".

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the Petitioner had demonstrated bona fide intent by making the payment within the deadline on 27.01.2026.

p. 3

It held that the subsequent bounce-back of the fee after two days was a "technical irregularity" rather than a personal fault of the candidate.

p. 3

While acknowledging the Petitioner should have been more cautious in monitoring the portal, the Court reasoned that procedural hurdles cannot override the substantive right to pursue higher education.

p. 4, 5

The Court dismissed the NTA's concerns regarding logistical disturbances, stating that such administrative issues cannot take precedence over a student’s career aspirations.

p. 6

It further noted that the Petitioner was not seeking an unfair advantage or blocking another candidate’s seat, but merely seeking participation.

p. 7