'Timings Must Be Followed' : Delhi HC Denies Relief to CUET Aspirant Late by 6 Minutes
The appellant had missed her CUET UG exam after reaching the centre at 8:36 AM - six minutes past the gate closing time of 8:30 AM;
Reiterating strict enforcement of examination guidelines and timing, the Delhi High Court recently denied relief to an 18-year-old CUET aspirant who arrived at the centre six minutes after the gate-closing time.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta in its order stated,"The CUET UG examination is an exam where more than 13.54 lacs students from across the country appear. If exceptions are made, and discipline is not followed in such an exam, the timely conduct of the exam, the timely announcement of results and timely admission to colleges and Universities is all likely to be jeopardised and there would be a cascading effect. In such matters, the interference by the Court should be the least."
The Division Bench was hearing an appeal filed by an 18-year-old CUET aspirant challenging the single judge’s order that had dismissed her writ petition.
In its 28 May decision, the single judge had rejected her plea, citing Clause 6.3 of the Information Bulletin, which clearly states that candidates can only appear in the time and slot mentioned in their admit cards. The judge also emphasised Clause 8.1, which advises students to reach the centre two hours in advance.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that some centres had allowed late entry, and that a rigid denial in her case would jeopardise her future and block admission to central universities.
Opposing the plea, the NTA submitted that selective relaxation would undermine fairness and affect normalization across shifts. It added that with over 13.54 lakh students registered, strict adherence to timelines was essential for maintaining discipline.
Upholding the single judge's order, the Bench observed that Clause 8.2 must be read in conjunction with the admit card, which clearly specified the gate closing at 08:30 A.M.
Emphasising the importance of the rule of law and examination discipline, the Court held that making exceptions for one student would disrupt the overall schedule and compromise fairness.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Sadhana Yadav v. Union of India & Ors