The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging the results of the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024 for admission to Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and other business schools [Aditya Kumar Mallick v. Union Of India And Anr]..Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected the plea filed by a CAT candidate who alleged that there was an uncorrected error in the answer key, which affected the CAT results."We find no reason to interfere, the petition is accordingly dismissed," the Court held..While rejecting the petition, the Court in its order stated that since the candidate's case is based on inferential reasoning, benefit will be given to the examining authority."The entire case of the Petitioner is based on inferential reasoning. He has attempted to show to the Court, by a three page analysis as to why Option 3, as decided by the panel of SME’s [Subject Matter Expert] appointed by Respondent No. 2, is incorrect. The Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that only where there is a demonstrable and glaring error, interference is required, however, if an answer key is held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or a process of rationalisation then the benefit is to be given to the examination authority," the Court stated..The Court said that judicial interference is not warranted unless glaring error is clearly demonstrated to the Court. "In addition, in order for an answer key to be held as incorrect, it has to be clearly demonstrated as such and not by a process of inferential reasoning. The sanctity of the process should be preserved by limiting the interference of the Courts in academic matters. Judicial interference is an exception to uphold the autonomy and integrity of academic boards," the Court observed. .It had expressed its inclination to reject the plea earlier as well when the matter was heard on January 3.The Court had then observed that it cannot intervene in such disputes concerning competitive exams, except in certain limited circumstances."Law is clear on this aspect, normally the court will not interfere. Only when there is egregious wrong, we will interfere. When there is a grey area, we will not interfere," it had stated while reserving its judgment.The single-judge then proceeded to dismiss the plea today..The CAT 2024 exam was conducted on November 24. A provisional answer key was released on December 3. The petitioner, Aditya Kumar Mallick, who was one of the candidates who took the exam, raised an objection to the provisional answer key, contending that there was an error in an answer declared for a question from the comprehension section of the exam paper.Despite the objection, the final answer key was released with no change in the provisional answer key, it was contended. The aspirant claimed that his objection was supported by distinguished experts and faculty members of various CAT coaching centres.His plea added that a total of 272 objections were raised by various candidates on this question. Appearing for the petitioner-candidate, advocate Praveen Kumar Singh urged the Court to hear the matter, more so since the petitioner's objection to the answer key was supported by others, including CAT coaching centres."272 objections were filed on this one question...Even if two options are correct, we (candidates who did not choose the answer marked as correct in the answer key) are benefiting," Singh argued.He added that the reply filed by IIM Calcutta, which organised the exam, does not explain how its answer is correct and how the candidate’s answer is wrong..He further contended that IIM Calcutta had hurriedly declared the results on December 19 without giving any reason or affording him time to take legal recourse. The aspirant argued that the result was expected in the second week of January 2025, and the haste in declaring results in December "speaks volumes."He, therefore, has urged the High Court to set aside the results declared in December and to appoint an expert committee to ascertain the correct answers.He also relied on the Delhi High Court's recent directive to revise the results of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), after it found merit in a candidate's objection to two answers in the final answer key..IIM Calcutta, represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, opposed any interference by the Court in the matter as well as the solutions arrived at by the coaching centres.He argued that the subject matter expert committee already considered the objections and that a personal difference of opinion about the right answer did not undermine the committee's view.Nayar urged the Court to trust the exam examiners' view in the matter, in case there was any doubt on what the right answer was. The credentials and names of the members of the experts were also given in a sealed cover to the Court..The candidate was represented by advocates Praveen Kumar Singh, Sanal Nambiar, Ishita Goel, Chetna Singh and Charu Singh.IIM Calcutta was represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar instructed by the team of Fox & Mandal led by advocate Kunal Vajani along with advocates Kunal Mimani, Sharmistha Ghosh, Kartikey Bhatt and Tanish Arora.Centre was represented by government counsel Balendu Shekhar with Advocate Krishna Chaitanya and Rajkumar Maurya.
