The Supreme Court recently dismissed a challenge against a rule requiring JEE Advanced candidates to have at least 75% aggregate marks in their Class XII (or equivalent) Board examination, which had been waived during the COVID-19 pandemic but subsequently revived.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition that challenged an eligibility crietrion for taking the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE Advanced), which is used to admit students to various undergraduate programmes at Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT). The contested criterion required candidates to have obtained a minimum of 75% in their Class XII (or equivalent) Board examination.
“2016, 2017, 2018…This condition has always been there that students must have obtained 75%,” Justice Dhulia pointed out, before asking, “Why, then, should we interfere?”
The petitioners’ counsel alleged that their fundamental rights were violated as a result of the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) decision not to extend the waiver of the academic performance-related criteria following the coronavirus pandemic, which is a government organisation in charge of administering the entrance examination.
“This condition was waived during COVID-19. During that period, the National Testing Agency (NTA) permitted students to sit the JEE Advanced examination without taking the Class XII assessment. These students who were allowed to take the exam during the pandemic are not allowed to take it now that the condition has returned. Some of these students scored more than 98.8 percent on the JEE Mains,” he informed the bench.
“Why don’t you approach the high court?” Justice Dhulia asked. The attorney responded that this would have pan-India ramifications. “First, you consider the petitioners you are representing,” the court replied.
“There are thousands of students all over India. They’ve contacted me in droves. They fared exceptionally well in JEE Mains but are not permitted to take the subsequent examination because this condition has been reinstated. These are deserving students,” the counsel tried to persuade the bench once more.
The bench, however, was unmoved by the counsel’s passionate arguments. Justice Dhulia stated, “This is not a matter we want to get into. These are educational issues. We must defer to the experts,” remarked Justice Viswanathan.
Aside from that, the bench refused to hear an intervention application filed on behalf of a candidate who fell 10 marks short of a 75% aggregate yet scored 92% in JEE Mains. Despite the counsel’s vehement condemnation of the policy as ‘discriminatory’ and a violation of the intervenor’s fundamental rights, the bench refused to grant her relief, noting that the information bulletin published by the organising institution had categorically outlined the academic performance criteria.
Earlier this month, the Bombay High Court had also rejected a similar petition.
