Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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