‘Can affect candidate’s ranking’: Delhi HC orders review of UGC-Net answer key over reported errors
The Delhi high court has ordered an expert review of four answers in the answer key for the examination to select candidates for UGC-Net June 2026, observing that errors in the answer key can impact a candidate’s merit ranking and eligibility.The examination, UGC-NET was conducted between June 22 to June 30, and approximately 7,27,506 candidates appeared for it, the results of which were declared in August, this year.A bench of justice Jasmeet Singh in his November 5 verdict, released on Thursday directed the expert committee to decide on the matter in three weeks, saying that the answer key appeared to contain errors.Also Read | Planning to take NET?
NTA explains how UGC-NET differs from CSIR-UGC NET– check eligibility, exam pattern“An error of this kind should not be suffered by the candidates. A wrong key in a competitive examination affects ranking and eligibility, since the marks awarded on the basis of the key determine a candidate’s merit position and whether the candidate crosses the qualifying cut-off, and even a single mark may decide whether a candidate is considered,” the court said.
The court passed the order while hearing five petitions filed by candidates who appeared for UGC-NET examination, challenging discrepancies in 10 answers from the provisional and final answer keys.The UGC-NET June 2026 examination was marred by several controversies, with candidates raising concerns over errors in question papers, alleged repetition of questions and discrepancies in answer keys.
The English paper particularly attracted criticism after 67 of its 150 questions were reportedly repeated from the 2024 examination. Complaints regarding the English, Commerce and Sociology papers prompted the NTA to conduct a fresh examination in September 2026.Also Read | NTA to recruit Group A and B posts, apply for Director and other posts at nta.ac.inIn its order, of the 10 disputed questions, the court declined to interfere with respect to six, after UGC submitted that they had been examined by subject experts and that no apparent error had been demonstrated.
It observed that the disputes involved matters of “academic opinion” and were “inferential” in nature, adding that it could neither sit in appeal over the experts’ assessment nor substitute its own opinion for theirs.However, with respect to four other questions justice Singh referred the same to subject experts and directed the expert committee to consider the petitions, grant the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within three weeks.
Out of the four questions, two were from Education-009, one from Urdu and the other one was from Geography.
