The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the results of the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024 for admissions to Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and other business schools, filed by a candidate who alleged an uncorrected error in the answer key impacted the results. 

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, rejecting the petition by CAT aspirant Aditya Kumar Mallick, held that there was no basis for judicial intervention. "We find no reason to interfere; the petition is accordingly dismissed," the Court stated.

The Court had earlier indicated its inclination to reject the plea during a hearing on January 3, observing that judicial interference in competitive exam disputes is warranted only in exceptional cases. The single-judge bench subsequently dismissed the matter on January 9.

The CAT 2024 exam, conducted on November 24, released its provisional answer key on December 3. Mallick contended that an error in the answer key for a comprehension question remained unaddressed, despite his objection. He claimed his objection, supported by faculty members from various CAT coaching institutes, was among 272 objections raised by candidates for the same question. 

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Praveen Kumar Singh argued that IIM Calcutta, which conducted the exam, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the disputed answer and hastily declared the results on December 19. He asserted the premature declaration deprived Mallick of the opportunity to seek legal recourse, adding that the results were expected in January 2025. Singh urged the Court to appoint an expert committee to review the disputed question and reconsider the results.

Singh also referenced a recent Delhi High Court decision directing a revision of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) results based on a candidate’s valid objections to the final answer key.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, representing IIM Calcutta, opposed the petition, asserting that the objections had been duly considered by a subject matter expert committee. He argued that differences in opinion with coaching centers do not discredit the committee's findings. Nayar emphasized the need to trust the examiners' judgment and submitted the credentials of the expert committee to the Court in a sealed cover.

The petitioner 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, along with a legal team from Fox & Mandal led by Advocate Kunal Vajani.