Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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,

Latest Legal News