NATA 2018: Candidates allege unexpectedly low marks in Drawing
New Delhi, June 6: Several candidates cried injustice on Wednesday when the Council of Architecture (COA) published results for the National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA) without re-evaluating the earlier result, as it had promised, after protests from examinees against unexpectedly low marks.
As the results were published on Wednesday evening, many students and parents were dismayed at finding that scores for the 'Drawing' paper were not changed as promised.
Earlier, when the results were published for the NATA on June 4, many candidates had complained of getting "unexpectedly" low marks. Attributing the error to a technical glitch, the COA had corrected the marks for the 'Aptitude' test, while asking the candidates, in a message on Monday, to disregard the scores for Drawing and requested them to wait for an updated result on June 6 (Wednesday).
However on Wednesday afternoon, the council sent another communication to the candidates informing them that no re-evaluation will be done for the Drawing paper.
"On direction by the competent authority, it is informed that no review/re-evaluation will be available for the drawing test (Part B)," tcsinfo hub, the technical vendor hired by COA for publishing results, said in an email.
Far from satisfied, candidates were left with no choice but to wonder at allegedly unfair marks they scored in the subject.
"Although I scored 37 in drawing, I was expecting somewhere in the 50s. I got good marks in JEE architecture paper also. There are many others who have been accorded marks in 20s, despite otherwise doing well in the JEE," Mansi Chandwani, a student who took the exam, told IANS.
She added that she has even heard of a student who scored a zero in the paper.
The parent of another candidate called it an "injustice" and said he, along with others, will move to the COA office in the morning to protest there.
"The main issue is that firstly there were so many issues related to technical glitches with the aptitude test results on Monday. They had to change the results thrice before getting it right. And now with the drawing paper, the scores are too low to be believable," said the parent of a candidate who scored below the passing threshold, failing to make the cut.
Students had also found a mistake in the publishing of year of the examination also, which was published as 2019, instead of 2018, and was corrected in the result published on Wednesday.
The annual exam for the architecture aspirants is conducted in two components: an online test for Mathematics and General Aptitude for 120 marks, and another a Drawing test for 80 marks. Both the tests were done on April 29.
Contacted by IANS, COA Vice President Rajeev Garg said there was no issue with the marks and any glitches which were there have been rectified.
"The complaints which we received (after Monday results) have been rectified. The problem was of mismatching. The examiners' scores were not matching with the score cards published. .. as for the low scores for drawing, you and I cannot decide how much one should get. If somebody has got a zero, we will look into it," he said.
A total of 44,265 candidates had appeared for the exam out of which 30,560 qualified.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
