Delhi HC seeks NTA response on NET retest

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from the Union Government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) on a plea challenging the decision to re-conduct the UGC-NET June 2026 English examination.

Justice Jasmeet Singh issued notice on a petition by candidate Parul Sheoran, who has sought quashing of the NTA's August 16 notice ordering the re-examination. The plea contends that the decision was arbitrary and procedurally unfair, and was taken without disclosing the material on which it was based.

The petitioner has sought processing of the results of the English examination already conducted. Alternatively, she has sought a refund of the examination fee paid for the original test and permission to appear in the re-conducted examination without paying an additional fee.

The court, on August 31, also directed the authorities to take a decision on refunding the examination fee and listed the matter for further hearing on October 6.

The NTA conducted UGC-NET June 2026 from June 22 to 30 across 87 subjects. It later said it had received complaints about errors in the English, Commerce and Sociology papers and constituted a committee to examine them.

The committee reportedly found factual, typographical and translation errors, including misspelled scholars' names, garbled book titles, grammatical and punctuation mistakes, and repetition of several previously asked questions.

The English and Commerce papers are scheduled to be re-conducted on September 9, while Sociology will be held on September 10.

The court said it is incumbent upon a professional driver of a larger vehicle such as the CNG DTC bus to adopt extra care and caution so that the safety of other persons on the road as well as its own passengers is not jeopardised.

It said the accused did not apply the brakes in time and that there was no mechanical failure in the brakes of the offending vehicle, according to the mechanical inspection report.

“The accused did not bother to slow down the speed and failed to apply the brakes in time, resulting in the collision and thereafter, running over the victim,” the court said.

“This act of the accused was manifestly and indubitably fraught with rashness and negligence. Rashness and negligence are writ large and can unmistakably be inferred from the very fact that the accused rammed the offending vehicle into a much smaller vehicle, i.e., a scooty and also applied brakes only after the collision and after running over the victim,” the court said, convicting the driver of the offences.

The court has posted the matter to hear arguments on the quantum of the sentence on Monday.