Alok Singh
The Delhi High Court, on January 3, 2025, reserved its decision on a plea challenging the results of the CAT 2024 examination conducted for admission to the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and other business schools.
The petition was filed by a candidate who alleged inaccuracies in the answer key that impacted the results.
During the hearing, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that judicial intervention in competitive examinations is typically limited to instances of substantial error, and the Court can’t interfere in such disputes except in specific limited circumstances.
The petitioner argued that there was an error in the answer key, supported by feedback from CAT coaching institutes and other candidates. It was pointed out that 272 objections had been filed concerning a specific question. IIM Calcutta, which conducted the exam, had failed to justify why its answer was correct or disclose the identities of the experts who reviewed the objections. Videos of the coaching institutes highlighting discrepancies were presented, and the petitioner urged the Court to review these materials as evidence of the alleged error.
On behalf of IIM Calcutta, Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar opposed the plea, emphasizing that a committee of subject matter experts had examined the objections. Further, it contended that differing opinions did not undermine the committee’s assessment and urged the Court to rely on the examiners’ expertise. The experts’ credentials were submitted to the Court in a sealed cover.
The petitioner’s counsel drew parallels with a recent Delhi High Court ruling, which directed revisions to CLAT results after identifying similar errors in the answer key. He also criticized the lack of transparency from IIM Calcutta and questioned the early release of results, which deviated from the expected timeline.
The CAT 2024 examination was held on November 24, and a provisional answer key was released on December 3. Despite multiple objections the petitioner and other candidates raised, the final answer key was published without modifications, and the results were declared on December 19.
The petitioner contended that the release of results denied candidates adequate time to seek legal remedies and called for the results to be set aside, requesting an expert committee to reassess the disputed answers.
Case Name: Aditya Kumar Mallick v. Union Of India And Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C)-17764/2024 CM APPL. 75532/2024
Bench: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju