The Delhi High Court has ordered the National Testing Agency (NTA) to form an expert committee to investigate alleged errors in the UGC NET History answer key for the December 2025 examination. Thousands of candidates claim up to nine questions and two translations were incorrect, impacting their eligibility for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Assistant Professor roles. This directive aims to provide clarity and potential score adjustments for affected aspirants.
Delhi High Court Orders Review of UGC NET History Answer Key
The Delhi High Court, on February 19, directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to establish an expert committee within four weeks. This committee’s mandate is to thoroughly examine grievances from applicants regarding alleged inaccuracies in the UGC NET History answer key for the December 2025 examination. Thousands of candidates assert that numerous questions and their translations contained errors, which significantly affected their scores.
The UGC NET exam, held from December 31, 2025, to January 7, 2026, is crucial for candidates seeking eligibility for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF), Assistant Professor positions, and PhD admissions. Provisional answer keys were released on January 14, followed by results on February 4.
Court Intervention and Candidate Concerns
The legal challenge began with a writ petition filed by Kartikeya Kahol, who disputed four specific question IDs. During the initial hearing on February 10, the court asked the NTA for a response, to which the NTA’s advocate stated that a committee for the History subject was already in place.
By the second hearing on February 19, Kahol’s advocate argued that one of the contested issues—identical options in a question—did not necessitate a committee’s review due to its clear nature. Recognizing this, the judge awarded Kahol two marks, enabling him to qualify for JRF, and disposed of his petition. The court further directed the NTA to consider intervention applications from other students within the same four-week timeframe, leading to the formation of a new expert committee.
Following the court’s order, the NTA confirmed via email on February 21 that it had indeed formed a subject expert committee to re-examine the concerns related to the History paper. This move offers a glimmer of hope for thousands of candidates awaiting potential corrections and score revisions.
The UGC NET History Controversy Explained
Approximately 60,777 candidates appeared for the UGC NET History paper in December 2025. Many aspirants complained that the NTA incorrectly marked as many as nine questions and had errors in two question translations. Despite submitting detailed objections, the final answer key released on February 4 remained unchanged, leading to widespread dissatisfaction.
Candidates have voiced their frustrations:
- Mihir Bayen (West Bengal): Narrowly missed qualifying for Assistant Professor, stating that nine mistakes were identified in the provisional answer key, including a question with two identical options where only one was marked correct.
- Abhishek Yadav: Highlighted factual and structural errors in several exam questions. Many students provided references from reputable historians like Satish Chandra and Upinder Singh to challenge these questions during the objection window.
- Parismita Borah: Missed the JRF cutoff by two questions, despite believing she correctly answered disputed questions.
- Akash Mishra: Criticized the non-refundable Rs 200 fee per objection and the lack of transparency in how subject experts reviewed challenges.
Coaching faculty, such as Ashwani Tyagi from Testbook Supercoaching, largely supported these claims, identifying nine incorrect answers and two translation errors. However, some JRF holders, including Silpa Silu, Kushagra Manas, and Abin Jolly, contended that only three questions were truly questionable, suggesting that some faculty members might be exaggerating the issue, potentially delaying the release of final certificates for all qualified candidates.
Discrepancies were not limited to History; candidates from other subjects, like Political Science and Education, also reported errors, often missing qualification by a narrow margin after their challenged questions were not dropped. Critics suggest that the number of errors has increased since the NTA assumed sole responsibility for the NET exam, with a growing reliance on memorization-based questions.
