The Madhya Pradesh High Court has verbally raised concern over the practicality of a re-exam with its verdict on the National Testing Agency’s appeal against a single‑judge order mandating a NEET‑UG 2025 retest for candidates affected by power outages at exam centres in Indore and Ujjain .
A division bench comprising of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi was conducting the hearing after placing the June 23 order, which required the NTA to hold a re-examination for the affected students, on temporary hold. The bench acknowledged the mental stress experienced by the aspirants but questioned the practicality of conducting an additional exam for a minority group among approximately 22 lakh examinees.
The court remarked: “We understand the students’ distress, but out of 22 lakh candidates, only a few were affected. Everyone cannot be selected. Hard luck, bad luck. Only one plane crashed, but thousands fly every day”—this metaphor was used by the bench to illustrate the rare nature of the disruption caused.
On behalf of the NTA, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that an independent committee including experts from IIT Delhi did not find any significant difference between the performance of students at affected and unaffected centres, further stating that there were provisions of natural light and DG backups during the outages. He highlighted that one of the students from the impacted centre secured an All India Rank 2, reinstating the claim that the performance was not consistently affected, and warned that re-testing could delay the academic calendar. He also questioned the logistical feasibility of awarding graceful marks, asking which students should qualify, leading to further complications.
In contrast, advocates representing the aspirants led by Adv. Rupesh Kumar, argued that the exam centres lacked adequate lighting, forcing some to rely on candlelights in the unsuitable weather, and that such conditions were clearly exceptional and those who were affected deserve to be relieved. They emphasized that even if only a few students suffered, legal precedents endorse issuing relief in exceptional cases with regards to the Article 14 of the Constitution.
The single‑judge’s June 30 decision had held that students were disadvantaged through no fault of their own, meriting judicial relief for only genuinely affected applicants and not all the candidates.
The High Court is expected to deliver its final judgment after July 10, following further submissions from both the parties. The outcome will decide whether limited retests will proceed for those who claimed hardship, or whether the original exam results will stand for all.
