New Delhi, March 2, 2026 — The Delhi High Court has given a significant directive to the National Testing Agency (NTA) to constitute an expert review panel to examine alleged errors in the UGC National Eligibility Test (UGC NET) answer key issued for the December 2025 – January 2026 cycle. This judicial intervention comes after multiple students challenged the final keys, claiming inaccuracies that impacted their scores and eligibility outcomes.
What Happened in Court
The controversy stems from the UGC NET History paper, one of the subjects in the December session. Candidates, led by petitioner Kartikeya Kahol, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court, contending that nine questions and two translations in the answer key were incorrect or ambiguous — and that these errors directly affected qualifying scores for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Assistant Professor eligibility.
During hearings on February 10 and February 19, the court noted that these issues went beyond routine objections, with options in some questions appearing identical or erroneously marked. In one instance identified by the bench, two options were identical, yet only one was marked correct — a discrepancy the court said needed judicial correction.
The bench — after hearing petitioner and NTA arguments — ordered the agency to constitute a fresh expert committee within four weeks, accept all representations as representations under law, and give each applicant a chance to be heard before the panel.
Why This Matters
The UGC NET is a prestigious national eligibility examination conducted by the NTA on behalf of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to determine eligibility for Assistant Professor positions and Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) in Indian universities and colleges. Results and answer keys are critical, as they are used to award JRF slots and recruitment credentials for aspirants nationwide.
For the December 2025 session, the answer key and final result were issued in early February 2026. However, many students — particularly for the History paper — felt that provisional and final answer keys contained unaddressed errors despite objection windows.
Candidate Concerns and Reactions
According to student accounts, discrepancies in the History paper’s answer keys cost some aspirants crucial marks, with some missing qualification cutoffs by as little as one or two marks. One candidate said after his challenges were dismissed, the absence of corrections left him short of qualifying.
Thousands of NET aspirants nationwide are now awaiting the expert panel’s review and its outcome, as corrections could lead to updated rankings, scores and possible change in qualifying status for JRF or Assistant Professor eligibility.
Court’s Directive and NTA’s Response
The court’s order clarified that all pending intervention applications and objections should be treated as representations, and the committee must:
- Hear the candidates personally or through representatives,
- Re-examine all contested questions, and
- Pass reasoned orders within the four-week deadline set from February 19.
In response, the NTA informed students on February 21 that it had already formed a subject expert committee to re-examine concerns for the History paper, although the court’s directive requires a fresh, comprehensive review process.
