Shashank Shekhar Pandey v. Union of India

16. Mr. Khanna submits that in petitioner’s case, this exact process of automatic submission has occurred which explains the absence of a log entry for the alleged Summary page, referred to by the petitioner. He submits that the log entries are activity logs that capture actions initiated by the candidate, such as a mouse click or cursor movement. Since conclusion of the exam is a pre-programmed automatic event that requires no action by the candidate, no corresponding ‘action’ is performed by the petitioner. Therefore, the system does not generate an audit log for this automatic event.

17. Controverting the contention of the petitioner with regard to the ‘Assessment Summary’ chartshown in the TCS Write-Up, he submits that the same is not relevant to the present matter as the format mentioned therein does not relate to JEE (Main) examination. He submits that the chart in question distinctly shows separate sections for ‘Group I’ and ‘Group II’ which are statedly not a feature of the JEE (Main) examination structure. The said portion of the Write-Up is reproduced hereunder: “Assessment Summary Group 2 (Current Group) Section Name No. Of Questions Answered Not Answered Marked for Review Answered & Review (will also be evaluated) Not Visited Display and tearing of rough sheets 1 0 1 0 0 0 Group 1 (Attempted Group, View not allowed Edit not allowed) Section Name No. Of Questions Answered Not Answered Review Answered & Review (will also be evaluated) Not Visited Test of Regulatory knowledge and working of the 60 2 3 1 0 54 Bank Test of Knowledge Current Events, Geopolitics Macro Economics 30 0 1 0 0 29 Are you sure to submit this Group Click Yes to proceed Click No to go back Dear Candidate. Once the Group is submitted you cannot revisit and edit your responses Yes No”

18. Mr. Khanna further invites attention of the Court to the audit logs filed along with counter affidavit of NTA. Referring to the last few entries at page 85, he submits that there is a distinct log entry recording the candidate’s cursor activity for manual submission of the feedback form at 12:01:06:520 which tags the activity as ‘Candidate Submitted The Feedback’. However, no such entry is present relatable to the submission of examination, indicating no activity by the petitioner at the said time.

19. He places reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Aishani Ojha v. National Testing Agency and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2604, wherein after scrutinizing the official records, this Court found no reason to believe a petitioner’s mere ‘speculations’ of error. He submits that the petitioner's version is contradicted by the verified electronic audit logs, which record candidate’s every action in real-time. In the absence of any manifest technical error, the official record maintained by the NTA takes precedence.

20. Further, replying upon the decisions in Gaurav Jaiswal v. Union of India & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3456 and Tanishq Mishra v. NTA & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2482, Mr. Khanna submits that the petitioner, at best, has raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

21. In rejoinder, Mr. Pandey has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Ehsan and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1331.

22. He further submits that he was constrained to file the present petition since respondent/NTA provides no internal redressal mechanism for a candidate to challenge their official recorded response sheet.

23. At this stage, Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, learned counsel for National Forensic Science Laboratory (NFSL) submits that the TCS Write- Up referred to by the parties, was given by respondent no.2/NTA only to enable NCFL to understand the terminology and content of the audit logs for data analysis.

24. I have carefully examined the material on record, as well as, the rival contentions of the parties.

25. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily based on the submission that at the conclusion of his examination in Session II of JEE (Main) – 2025, a ‘pop-up’summary page reflected that he had attempted 46 questions and 29 questions were left un-attempted. On the other hand, respondent no.2/NTA, which is the examination conducting body, has refuted the claim of the petitioner, taking a categorical stand that the official records maintained by them demonstrate that petitioner had attempted only 29 questions, whereas 46 questions remained un-attempted.

26. Having regard to the technical aspect involved in the present dispute and the vehement assertion of the petitioner that there is a discrepancy in the petitioner’s recorded response sheet for the JEE (Main) – 2025 for Session II as compared to his actual attempt, as well as, the joint request of parties to undertake such an exercise, this Court deemed it fit to obtain opinion of technical experts after due forensic analysis. Thus, vide order dated 14.05.2025, this Court referred the matter to CFSL with due consent of the parties.

27. However, in view of the letter dated 19.05.2025 from the Director, CFSL stating the inability of CFSL undertake the exercise, vide order dated 20.05.2025, this Court referred the matter to NCFL. Subsequently, Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, appearing on behalf of NCFL, furnished the forensic report of NCFL dated 28.05.2025, which was taken on record.

28. The report of NCFL dated 28.05.2025 has been perused by this Court. In the said report, basis the examination of the material provided to NCFL by respondent no.2/NTA, the following observations have been made with regard to the number of questions attempted and un-attempted by the petitioner: “(1) The provided audit logs by NTA in the folder named as “Audit Log session 2” (as mention in Figure 2) were thoroughly analysed. For nomenclature of the heading in activity column provided in the logs were asked from NTA. As per the details provided by them through the email marked as (Ref. Document-1). For the same are as follows, a) The number of questions attempted - 29 (related logs has been provided in hard copy marked as “Annexure-1 Questions Attempted” page number (Page no.5)). b) The number of questions un-attempted – 46 (related logs has been provided in hard copy marked as “Annexure-2 Questions Un-attempted” page number (Page No. 6)). c) It cannot be opined that whether pop up was displayed on the screen at the end of the examination as no logs related to this activity are available in the audit log session 2 given by the NTA. (2) As per the logs provided by NTA it can’t be opined whether editing/tampering or system errors occurred in the software or at the level of backend administrator or at the examination centre during the conduct of examination or after submission of the computer-based test by the candidate.” (emphasis supplied)

29. After conducting analysis of the relevant records, the technical experts have given a finding that the petitioner had attempted only 29 questions and not 46 as claimed by the petitioner. However, as noted above, the bone of contention is with regard to the alleged pop-up message or the ‘Assessment Summary’ page which appears at the conclusion of the exam, and whether the same had appeared for the petitioner as well, showing his attempted questions as 46.

30. Though, the petitioner has argued that said pop-up message was shown at the end of his attempt in Session II of the JEE (Main) – 2025, but the audit logs for the same are absent as per the official records of respondent no.2/NTA which points to a system anomaly. Such absence of log data has also been noted by the technical experts in their report dated 28.05.2025.

31. In this regard, respondent no.2/NTA has placed reliance on the Information Bulletin for JEE (Main) – 2025 published by them, particularly on Appendix IX of the Bulletin which sets out the relevant information for candidates taking examination in Computer Based Test (CBT) format. The general instructions contained therein dictate inter alia the procedure for answering a question which suggests that after marking any answer, the candidate would be required to save the same and go to the next question after clicking a button tagged as ‘Save and Next’. The said portion of Appendix IX is as under:

32. With regard to submission of the examination, another clause has been given under the heading of ‘Instruction for Question’, relevant being para 19 therein, which provides that upon conclusion of the allotted time, indicated by a timer on-screen, a feature kicks in whereby the examination ends by itself and the candidates are not required to manually end or submit the examination. Relevant para reads thus: “19. The on-screen computer clock counter of every candidate will be set at the server. The countdown timer on the top right side of the computer screen will display the time remaining (in minutes) available for the candidate to complete the examination. When the timer reaches zero, the examination will end by itself. The candidates will not be required to end or submit the examination.”

33. Having referred to the above information, it appears that the CBT format, in which examination for JEE (Main) – 2025 had been conducted, provided for a contingency to auto-submit the response of the candidates in case the candidate is not left with any time to submit the examination before it concludes. This, to my mind, appears to be a safety function for the benefit of the candidates, in case they lose track of time during their attempt at the exam, which is a common occurrence during high pressure situations.

34. Be that as it may, the function as described above, being automatic in nature, would definitely not require the candidate to do any action, with the mouse or otherwise. Notably, enquiry conducted by NCFL was based on the audit logs, which are computer generated records of all actions done by the candidates. Therefore, logically understood, when there is no action by a candidate, the same would not be recorded in the audit logs either.

35. Having regard to the above observations, this Court finds substance in the contention of Mr. Khanna, that absence of audit logs with regard to the alleged ‘pop-up’ summary page after conclusion of petitioner’s examination, cannot be assumed as a system anomaly. There is every possibility that the exam was submitted automatically. The explanation offered by the respondent no.2/NTA appears to be both cogent and consistent with the instructions contained in the Information Bulletin for JEE (Main) – 2025.

36. Further, the audit logs themselves show a distinct log entry for the petitioner’s manual action of submitting the feedback form, denoted as ‘Candidate Submitted The Feedback’, which indicates that voluntary actions by a candidate are duly recorded with appropriate tags.

37. On the contrary, perusal of the logs just prior to the final audit log, especially the log pertaining to submission of the exam, demonstrates that the same has been done at 12:00:11:138 with the tag ‘Submitted the exam’. To be noted, the said tag does not indicate that the action was done by the candidate. Pertinently, the start of the examination was recorded at 09:00:10:762 with the tag ‘Clicked:: I am ready to begin and Time Left:180:00’. Considering that the two logs are within the exact time span of the examination, i.e. 3 hours, it can safely be concluded that the exam was auto submitted, and not by the petitioner himself as a manual action.

38. Reliance by the petitioner on the ‘Assessment Summary’ page also does not inspire confidence since the same does not find mention in the Information Bulletin. Rather, the same has been mentioned in a document published by TCS, which appears to have been sent to NCFL merely for reference to enable NCFL to understand technicalities of the system. Admittedly, diagram of such the page as shown in the TCS Write-Up, suggests that it relates to certain ‘Groups’ which does not form part of the examination format in JEE (Main) and may be part of a different examination, considering that NTA is entrusted with conducting various national level examinations.

39. Having regard to the above discussion, it seems that petitioner’s entire case is predicated on his personal recollection of a transient ‘pop-up’ message appearing after submission of his exam. On the other hand, NTA’s stand is that in view of the auto submit that occurred for the petitioner, no summary ‘pop-up’ message would have been shown and the petitioner would have directly been taken to the feedback page. The assertion of petitioner being in dispute, and nothing having been brought on record to substantiate his claim, no prima facie case can be said to have been made out in petitioner’s favour.

40. Thus, in the absence of any manifest technical error, which has been ruled out as above, the official record maintained and secured by the NTA, must take precedence over the petitioner's claim. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision in Aishani Ojha (supra) wherein, while confronted with similar circumstances, this Court held as under: “11. The NTA is endowed with conducting various entry-level examinations at the national level. It has established a mechanism and undertaken measures to endeavour a test environment that is free from data infringement or manipulation. For this reason, the JEE (Main) is conducted on a computer system wherein every movement of a candidates’ cursor on the screen and their responses are recorded and stored in an electronic database in the form of audit logs, that have been duly produced before the Court. The record/documents relied on by the parties, particularly the response sheet and the audit log for session 2 of JEE (Main) of Petitioner have been scrutinized. As per the audit log, Petitioner cleared responses to several questions after having already attempted/selected a response thereto. While Petitioner has persistently contended that the same are recorded erroneously, the Court finds no reason to believe such speculations. The audit log maintained by the NTA records not only the selected response, but also the number of times a candidate has visited the question, response so selected/entered on a real-time basis. Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that she had indeed attempted 75 questions. Her version is contradicted by the verified electronic record of NTA, which is maintained by National Informatics Centre. No technical error is manifest and thus, the Court remains unconvinced of Petitioner's claim that a technical snag in the system has resulted in low score in JEE (Main).”

41. It is also well settled that under Section 1141 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is a presumption in favour of official records such as the records maintained by NTA, being an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education. In Selishia Mohandas v. Union of India, Through its Director and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4973, this Court observed the said position of law and held as under: “18. The specific submissions have been made by respondent no.2-NTA in its counter affidavit and the original OMR sheet has also been presented. The record produced by the respondents is the official record. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the same.

19. There is a presumption in favour of the official record in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In absence of any concrete document to rebut the presumption, the correctness of the official record cannot be doubted.

20. There is no reason to believe that respondent no.2-NTA would fabricate or replace the marks obtained by any of the candidates. Respondentno.2-NTA has no personal stake.”

42. Regardless, it is settled position of law that courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not enter into a dense factual thicket, especially when a petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision this Court in Vibhuti Negi (supra). The relevant part reads as under:

Equivalent to section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. “36. Any further enquiry into the controversy would require the court to enter into a dense factual thicket, which cannot be undertaken under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it, therefore, to state that, in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction, this Court is, in the facts before it, unable to accept the petitioner’s assertion that two response sheets and two score cards had been issued by the NTA.”

43. Likewise, reference may advantageously be had to the judgment in Tanishq Mishra (supra) in which this Court made following pertinent observations: “20. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Petitioner does not have the response sheets to authenticate his scores, which could perhaps have supported his version. On the other hand, digital records produced by NTA, system-generated emails, QR mismatch, response sheets with audit log, login details for accessing website, as maintained and authenticated by NIC, all point the case to the contrary. While Petitioner may continue to assert that his documents are authentic, however, on the basis of facts and documents shown, this Court cannot come to this conclusion. The question of forgery and tampering of records can only be determined after the parties have been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, and this exercise cannot be undertaken in the present proceedings. The Petitioner has failed to prove his bona fides. The Court remains unconvinced of the genuineness of the Petitioner's documents. Thus, there is no basis to grant relief to the Petitioner.”

44. Lastly, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ehsan (supra), sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, does not come to his aid since in the said judgment as well, it was held that for compelling reasons, the Court may reject the plea to maintain a writ petition where a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact has arisen and material/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.

45. It has already been observed above that nothing is on record to show that the alleged ‘pop-up’ message relied upon by the petitioner had appeared on his screen. The records produced by respondent no.2/NTA to substantiate their stand is consistent with the findings of technical experts when seen in the light of Information Bulletin. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to entertain the present case any further in writ proceedings.

46. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application is disposed of as well.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2025