Earlier this week, I appeared before the Delhi High Court on behalf of a UGC-NET June 2026 candidate in W.P.(C) 10184/2026 — Aman Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. — challenging the alleged leak of the Sociology (Paper-II) question paper. The Court has issued notice to the Union of India, the National Testing Agency (NTA), and the University Grants Commission (UGC), calling on them to respond to the allegations.

I'm writing this up in some detail because I think this case matters — not just for my client, but for every candidate who has ever sat for a competitive exam and trusted that the process was fair.

HOW I GOT INVOLVED

My client appeared for the Sociology paper on 30.06.2026. Like many other candidates, he flagged serious problems with the paper itself soon after — names of major sociologists printed incorrectly (Ritzer as "Putzar," Ghurye as "Ghunye," Nussbaum as "Nuzbaut," among others), and Hindi translations that meaningfully diverged from the English text. On his own initiative, he sent a representation to the NTA on 03.07.2026 asking for accountability.

Then the story changed. Around 09.07.2026, media reports surfaced pointing to a PDF in circulation — reportedly across several states — containing close to 90 of the roughly 100 questions that would go on to appear in the actual paper. My client had come across this document himself, and its own metadata carries a creation timestamp of 4:08 AM on 30.06.2026 — nearly eleven hours before the exam even began. He sent a second, sharper representation to the NTA's Director General on 12.07.2026, laying this out specifically. Neither representation was ever answered.

That is the point at which he approached me. By then, the matter had drawn public and political attention, and reports suggested the Ministry of Education had directed the NTA to investigate. But two representations had gone nowhere, and the result remained undeclared, drawing closer by the day. I took the view that waiting on the authorities' own timeline was not good enough, and moved to draft and file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

WHY I FILED WHEN I DID

The single most important decision in this case was timing. Once a result is declared, everything changes — candidates get provisional admissions, fellowships get awarded, and people start building on an outcome that, if later found compromised, becomes far harder to undo without hurting people who did nothing wrong. I've seen how courts have approached this before — in the NEET-UG 2024 leak controversy, relief was declined largely because the result had already been declared and counselling was already underway by the time the matter reached the Court.

I wasn't going to let that happen here. I filed this petition specifically to get in front of that clock — while there was still a result to protect, not one to unwind. My prayer to the Court was simple: pause the declaration of this one subject's result, hand the investigation to the CBI or an SIT, and order a re-conduct of the paper if the leak is confirmed.

WHAT I ARGUED IN COURT

When I stood up to argue, my case rested on facts I could point to, not speculation: a document containing nearly 90 matching questions, bearing the signatures of the very experts who set the paper, created eleven hours before the exam — and two representations that had gone completely unanswered despite the Ministry's own admission that this needed investigating. I told the Court plainly: once this result is out, no remedy after that point can undo what will already have been set in motion. This is the only stage at which the Court's intervention can still be effective.

WHERE THE CASE STANDS

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Respondents — meaning the Union of India, NTA, and UGC are now formally required to respond to these allegations, something they have refused to do for weeks despite my client's representations. I want to be upfront about what this order does and doesn't mean: it is not a finding that the paper was leaked, and it is not yet a stay on the result. It is the Court taking this seriously enough to demand answers. The fight for interim protection and a full investigation continues at the next hearing, and I will be back before the Court to press for it.

WHY I'M TAKING THIS ON

I've built my practice around cases where ordinary people are up against institutions that would rather stay silent than be accountable. This is one of those cases. My client did everything right — he studied, he appeared for his exam, and when something looked wrong, he raised it through the proper channels, twice, and was met with silence both times. That silence is what brought this to court, and I intend to keep pushing until there's a real answer.

If you appeared for the UGC-NET Sociology paper and have relevant information, or if you simply want to follow how this case develops, feel free to reach out to me directly.

This article will be updated as the matter progresses.

UGC-NET Sociology Paper Leak: Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Centre, NTA and UGC