Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Delhi High Court Upholds JEE Normalization Procedure, Asserts “Normalization A Necessity in National-Level Exams”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today dismissed a writ petition challenging the normalization process adopted in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Main, affirming the necessity of such procedures in national-level examinations.

Legal Point of the Judgment: The key legal issue centered around the normalization procedure used in calculating the percentile scores for the JEE Main examination. The petitioner, a candidate in the JEE Main 2024, had contested the methodology of result calculation and the declared percentile scores, alleging discrepancies and unfairness in the normalization process.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner appeared for the JEE Main exam on January 27, 2024, and subsequently challenged the result declared on February 12, 2024. The grievance was primarily against the alleged opacity and the supposed unfairness of the normalization procedure used by the National Testing Agency (NTA) for calculating percentile scores across different exam shifts.

Court’s Assessment: The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, meticulously evaluated the arguments. The judge observed that the normalization process is a “detailed statistical process” and recognized it as a necessary tool to balance varying difficulty levels across different exam papers. Justice Shankar noted, “The performance of a candidate has to be assessed vis-à-vis her, or his, peers who have attempted papers of the same difficulty level.” The court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim that the process was either arbitrary or opaque, highlighting that the normalization procedure was clearly outlined in the Information Bulletin of the JEE Examination.

The Court also emphasized the Impracticality of having identical papers for such a large-scale exam and acknowledged the inevitability of some variance in difficulty levels. Moreover, it was pointed out that the petitioner, like all candidates, was aware of this procedure before undertaking the examination.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court, which held that the normalization procedure adopted by the JEE was neither arbitrary nor unfair, and that it did not result in constitutionally unsustainable outcomes.

Date of Decision: February 27, 2024.

Setu Vinit Goenka vs. National Testing Agency & Anr,

Similar News