W.P.(C)/12857/2025 of SANIDHYA SUBHADARSHAN Vs NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS.
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 1 of 9
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.01.2026
+ W.P.(C) 12857/2025 & CM APPL. 68252/2025, CM APPL.
78340/2025
SANIDHYA SUBHADARSHAN
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuraag Mehta, Mr. Ganga Sagar
Singh, Mr. Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya,
Mr. Adarsh Verma, Advs.
Ganga Sagar Singh, Mr. Anurag
Mehta, Mr. Anjana Devi,
versus
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Ms. Monika
Tiwari, Mr. Suryans Agrrwal, Advs.
for R-1
Mr. Shekhar Kumar SPC with Mr.
Kamaldeep GP for R-2&3
Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, Mr.
Ripumadan Sharma, Mr. Vashisht
Rao, Ms. Riya Sachdeva, Ms. Anisha
P Dash, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
: JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 2 of 9
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of
India seeking the following prayers:-
a. “Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to
continue attending MBBS classes, and pass such other or
further orders as this Hon'bleCourt may deem just, fit, and
proper in the interest of justice.
b. Direct the Respondents to extend to the Petitioner the
same relief as granted to Ms. Kirtee Koushika Panda, who
was similarly situated having been terminated from her
MBBS course and being under investigation by the CBI
and who, despite being included in the same list of
suspected candidates, was permitted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to continue her MBBS Studies and appear
in the end-semester examination.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner passed his 12th standard
examination in 2022 and subsequently appeared for the NEET-UG
2024 examination conducted on 05.05.2024. The result of th e same
was declared on 04.06.2024, whereby the petitioner scored 558 out of
720 total marks.
3. Consequently, the petitioner through the counselling process was
admitted to the MBBS course at Government Medical College,
Machilipatnam, Kara Agraharam, near Radar Station, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The respondent No. 4 namely, Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”)
issued summons dated 11.08.2024 directing the petitioner to appear for
investigation at the CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch ( “ACB”),
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 3 of 9
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, in connection with the alleged NEET-UG 2024
examination irregularities.
5. The respondent No. 1, namely the National Testing Agency (NTA)
issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2024 to the petitioner through
his registered email ID, requiring him to show cause why he should not
be debarred.
6. The petitioner duly replied to the said Show Cause Notice. However,
the respondent No. 1 proceeded to withdraw the NEET-UG 2024
result/scorecard of petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was
issued a relieving letter by the respondent No. 5, i.e. Government
Medical College, Machilipatnam, Kara Agraharam, near Radar Station,
Andhra Pradesh.
7. The aforesaid action was taken on the basis of a letter dated
25.11.2024, issued by the Medical Examination Cell, Directorate
General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India, which reads as under:
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 4 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 5 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 6 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 7 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 8 of 9
8. It is stated on behalf of the respondent No.1, that the CBI is
investigating into the allegations of leakage of NEET-UG 2 024
question paper and that the CBI shared a list of 22 candidates who have
been identified by them as being involved in various malpractices. The
roll number, application number, and name of the petitioner was al so
mentioned in the list as provided by CBI. It was on the basis of these
allegations of malpractice that the admission of the petitioner has been
cancelled.
9. Ms. Riya Sachdeva, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Anupam
S. Mishra, learned special public prosecutor for the CBI, and states that
the CBI has already filed a chargesheet in the matter and the petitioner
is not an accused as per the said chargesheet. The petitioner has only
been named as a witness. In the present case, the only reason for
cancellation of admission and removal of the name of the petition er
from the course is that there were allegations against the petit ioner of
malpractices regarding the NEET-UG 2024 Examination. There is no
other ground available for the said action against the petitioner.
10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
11. The petitioner by participating in an open entrance has secured
admission in the respondent No. 5 University on the basis of his merit.
In case the same is to be cancelled, there has to be some valid, genuine
and compelling reasons.
12. The statement of the counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI that the
petitioner is not an accused but is only a witness, makes it apparent that
there cannot be any prima-facie findings of the petitioner committing
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46
W.P.(C) 12857/2025 Page 9 of 9
any malpractices.
13. The valuable right accrued to the petitioner by clearing the entran ce
exam, i.e. NEET-UG needs to be protected, as the action of
cancellation of admission and removal of the name of the petition er
from the MBBS course is disrupting the academic progress of the
petitioner on totally unjustifiable grounds. The right to pursue higher or
professional education even though not explicitly spelt out as a
fundamental right in part III of the Constitution of India, it is an
affirmative obligation on the part of the state to ensure this right and the
same cannot be permitted to be curtailed, lightly.
14. For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and a Mandamus is issued
to the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue his MBBS Classes
in accordance with the curriculum.
15. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
JASMEET SINGH, J
JANUARY 7, 2026/sp
(Corrected and released on 10.01.2026)
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:13.01.2026
11:52:46