Power failure during NEET exam not a valid ground for re-test: Rajasthan HC
A single bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that the grievances raised by the petitioners lacked merit and could not justify altering or annulling the examination outcome for lakhs of other candidates
The Rajasthan high court on Monday dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by NEET-UG 2025 candidates from the state’s Sikar district who sought re-examination or compensatory marks due to alleged power outages and related disruptions during the national entrance examination held on May 4.
A single bench of Justice Sameer Jain on Monday held that the grievances raised by the petitioners lacked merit and could not justify altering or annulling the examination outcome for lakhs of other candidates.
The court acknowledged that around 15 centres in Sikar experienced power failures ranging from 5 to 28 minutes due to adverse weather. However, it noted that only 31 candidates out of the 31,787 who appeared in Sikar—and among nearly 22 lakh nationwide—approached the court with complaints.
The bench observed, “The principle de minimis non curat lex—the law does not concern itself with trifles—would squarely apply. Isolated grievances raised by a statistically negligible number of candidates cannot, by themselves, vitiate a large-scale examination conducted at a pan-India level.”
Also Read:MSEDCL cuts maintenance budget by ₹1,000 Crore, leads to increased power failures across the state
{{/usCountry}}Also Read:MSEDCL cuts maintenance budget by ₹1,000 Crore, leads to increased power failures across the state
{{/usCountry}}The court further noted that despite power disruptions, candidates from the affected centres scored competitively, with many securing marks between 550 and 600. A report by an Expert Committee also revealed no material difference in the number of questions attempted by candidates at affected and unaffected centres.
{{/usCountry}}The court further noted that despite power disruptions, candidates from the affected centres scored competitively, with many securing marks between 550 and 600. A report by an Expert Committee also revealed no material difference in the number of questions attempted by candidates at affected and unaffected centres.
{{/usCountry}}Rejecting the plea that irregularities in question paper sequence and non-functional wall clocks impacted performance, the high court held there was no directive requiring chronological order of questions and found no concrete evidence of prejudice.
{{/usCountry}}Rejecting the plea that irregularities in question paper sequence and non-functional wall clocks impacted performance, the high court held there was no directive requiring chronological order of questions and found no concrete evidence of prejudice.
{{/usCountry}}Addressing the demand for bonus marks, the court distinguished the case from NEET-UG 2024 precedents.
{{/usCountry}}Addressing the demand for bonus marks, the court distinguished the case from NEET-UG 2024 precedents.
{{/usCountry}}“In those cases, compensatory marks were awarded due to distribution of an incorrect question series, not on account of power outage or force majeure circumstances,” the bench clarified.
{{/usCountry}}“In those cases, compensatory marks were awarded due to distribution of an incorrect question series, not on account of power outage or force majeure circumstances,” the bench clarified.
{{/usCountry}}Justice Jain emphasised that “the interest of approximately 22 lakh candidates cannot be sacrificed
to provide a remedy to grievances made by a handful of candidates, moreover unsupported by cogent and substantial evidence of prejudice.”
Accordingly, the court dismissed all connected petitions and disposed of pending applications.
