We Will Not Interfere When There Is A Grey Area: Delhi HC On CAT 2024 Results

The Delhi High Court reserved its judgment on Friday regarding a petition challenging the results of the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024, which is used for admission to Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and other business schools.

The petition was filed by a CAT candidate, Aditya Kumar Mallick, who alleged that an uncorrected error in the answer key had affected the exam results.

The issue came to light when the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Praveen Kumar Singh, argued that there was a mistake in one of the questions in the CAT answer key. Singh stated that the error had impacted the final results and was supported by other candidates, including those from CAT coaching centres. He pointed out that 272 objections had been filed against the answer to one particular question and that even if two answers were correct, candidates who chose the alternative correct answer were still disadvantaged.

Singh also criticized the reply filed by IIM Calcutta, which had conducted the exam, arguing that it did not adequately explain how its answer was correct and the petitioner’s answer was wrong. Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel noted that IIM Calcutta had not disclosed the identities of the experts who reviewed the objections, leading to concerns about transparency. Singh further showed the Court videos from coaching centres explaining how the solution to the disputed question should be interpreted.

Representing IIM Calcutta, Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar opposed the petition, arguing that the court should not interfere in the matter. He contended that the expert committee had already reviewed the objections and that differences in opinion about the correct answer should not undermine the committee’s assessment. Nayar also assured the court that the names and credentials of the subject matter experts had been submitted in a sealed cover for confidentiality.

The petitioner’s counsel, however, maintained that there was room for the Court’s intervention in this case, particularly in light of the lack of transparency and the fact that the experts’ reasoning had not been clearly explained. Singh also referred to a recent Delhi High Court directive in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) case, where the Court had directed the revision of results after finding merit in a candidate’s objection to two answers in the final answer key.

The matter was heard by Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, who observed that the Court usually refrains from intervening in disputes related to competitive exams, except in exceptional cases. She emphasized that the Court would not interfere unless there was an “egregious wrong” or a clear error. Justice Ganju noted that when the issue is ambiguous, the Court typically does not get involved.

The petition stems from an objection raised by the petitioner regarding a question from the comprehension section of the exam, for which the provisional answer key was released on December 3. Despite the petitioner’s objections and those of others, the final answer key was released without any changes. The candidate claimed that IIM Calcutta had rushed to declare the results on December 19, 2024, without providing sufficient time for legal recourse, especially considering the results were initially expected in the second week of January 2025.

In light of these arguments, the petitioner has urged the Court to set aside the results and form an expert committee to ascertain the correct answers. After hearing both sides, the Court reserved its judgment on the matter, leaving the decision pending.

Read More: Jumped Deposit Scam: How To Protect Your Bank Accounts From The New UPI Scam?