A student attempting to gain admission to IIT failed to secure support from the Delhi High Court. The court dismissed her petition, ruling that decisions regarding IIT admission cannot be based on sympathy or personal difficulties, nor can it order the acceptance of a candidate who deviates from established rules and standards.
The case concerned the evaluation of JEE Main 2025 results and eligibility requirements for JEE Advanced 2026. The petitioner, Ashi Agrawal, alleged errors in the evaluation of certain JEE Main questions. She argued that if the grading errors were corrected, she could have achieved the necessary scores for JEE Advanced and qualified for admission to IIT.
According to the report, Ashi Agrawal objected to the grading of five questions in JEE Main 2025, three of which were in physics and two in chemistry. The student claimed that due to grading errors, she suffered a loss of 20 marks, in addition to a penalty system involving negative marking for five questions. She insisted that with correct grading, she would have qualified for the JEE Advanced screening. Furthermore, she disputed the denial of entry to the second session of JEE Main 2025, asserting that she arrived at the examination center earlier than the stipulated time but was not allowed to take the test.
The situation did not end there. During a previous hearing, the NTA presented audit logs related to the exam to the court. The student raised objections to these logs, including comments regarding the exam date, timestamps, question identifiers, and answer options. It was stated that one question had different options listed in the audit log and the answer sheet. In May 2026, following the student's allegations, the Delhi High Court directed the chairman of JEE Advanced 2026 to make a decision. However, she was subsequently denied entry to the JEE Advanced exam held on May 17, 2026. Her complaint was rejected on May 18.
The Delhi High Court noted that many issues concerning audit logs, percentiles, and examination center admission are factual disputes. Verification of these may require technical expertise, which the court cannot conduct within an appeal unless a clear error or arbitrariness is proven. The court also considered that for admission to IIT, the student would have had to accept a series of potential events: first, an error in the initial evaluation must be proven; then, scores and percentiles must be changed; only after that would she qualify for JEE Advanced, and only then could she be admitted to IIT. The court ruled that such a chain of potential events cannot serve as grounds for IIT admission.
The court also reviewed the eligibility criteria for JEE Advanced 2026. According to the report, this exam required the candidate to complete their final year (12th grade) for the first time in 2025 or 2026. Ashi Agrawal completed her 12th grade in 2024, meaning she did not meet this criterion. The court emphasized that eligibility rules apply equally to all candidates, and in this case, there were no grounds for exceptions to the rules.
The student also demanded the creation of an additional, or supernumerary, seat for admission to IIT Delhi. The court denied this request as well. In the court's view, admission to IIT operates within an established merit-based system where requirements, cut-offs, attempts, and seat capacities are predetermined. The court believes that creating a separate seat for one candidate and reopening the entire admission process does not constitute a standard form of relief. Considering all these aspects, the court rejected Ashi Agrawal's petition.
