Bombay HC rejects JEE Main 2023 eligibility plea, says ‘Can’t intervene at this stage’

The Bombay High Court today rejected the plea for the removal of JEE Main 75 per cent eligibility criterion. This plea has been filed to challenge the 75 per cent eligibility criterion for this attempt. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne said that they “can’t intervene with the ongoing process at this stage.”

They further added that it is for the “government to consider students’ grievances. We have our limitations as a Writ Court… The Supreme Court has powers.” The bench concluded the hearing and reserved its order.

The JEE Main exam conducting body National Testing Agency (NTA) sought the dismissal of the petition and said its decision was “conscious and well-considered” and the relaxation of the criterion for previous academic years was “one-time measure”.

According to the JEE Advanced brochure released this year, candidates should have secured at least 75 per cent in Class 12 board exams with the aggregate marks for SC, ST, and PwD candidates at least 65 per cent, or should be within the category-wise top 20 percentile of



successful candidates of their respective boards.

This eligibility criterion was in practice earlier too but was temporarily removed in Covid years. However, as all state and national boards returned to normalcy, the criterion was also restored.

The plea, which has been filed by child activist Anubha Srivastava Sahai, was heard in the Bombay High Court on April 24 by a bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh had argued for the NTA that the policy of 75 per cent criteria was applicable since 2017. Singh said the policy was temporarily relaxed for the years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. “It is not that we are implementing or re-implementing. This condition was kept in abeyance, and it has been revived,” Singh said.

“Unless it is an exceptional case, how far we can intervene in an education case. We will have to see that under Article 226 of the Constitution… We do not have powers under Article 142. This impugned condition was there prior to Covid-19 and it was relaxed only during Covid-19,” the bench said.