Author: Dr. Teena Momsia, The Dr BhimRao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
To the Point
The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024, which is a crucial entrance examination for students aspiring to pursue undergraduate medical and dental courses across India, was conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on May 5, 2024, with over 23 lakh candidates appeared across 4750 centers in 571 cities. The results of this highly competitive examination were declared on June 4, 2024, faced significant allegations of question paper leakage and malpractice. Despite these serious accusations, which included reports of malpractice from several locations, the results were declared on June 4, 2024.
Abstract
The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024, conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on May 5, 2024, with results declared on June 4, 2024, encountered significant allegations of question paper leakage and malpractice. Despite these serious concerns, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the exam results, determining that the overall integrity of the examination process was not compromised to an extent that would necessitate cancellation. The court underscored the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the examination while addressing any systemic deficiencies to ensure fairness for all candidates. The investigation revealed instances of malpractice in specific locations involving 155 students, but the overall examination results were considered valid. This decision by the court highlighted the delicate balance between legal and ethical considerations in ensuring the fairness and integrity of high-stakes examinations, reinforcing the need for robust mechanisms to prevent such issues in the future.
Use of Legal Jargon:
Confidentiality Breach: It refers to the unauthorized disclosure of the NEET (UG) 2024 question papers before the exam took place. This breach compromised the integrity of the examination process, as some candidates had access to the questions in advance, giving them an unfair advantage.
Petition for Mandamus: The plea brought forth by Vanshika Yadav and other petitioners, requesting the court to issue a writ of mandamus to the authorities to conduct a fair and transparent re-examination.
Due Process: The legal requirement that the examination and its assessment be conducted fairly, adhering to established legal procedures.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The case was filed under the provision of Public Interest Litigation to address the larger public impact of the examination malpractice on students nationwide.
Stay Order: An order issued by the court to temporarily halt the ongoing examination process until a thorough investigation is conducted.
Systemic failure: The case highlighted a significant breakdown in the institutional safeguards and procedures designed to ensure fairness and transparency in the examination process.
Judicial Review: The process by which the Supreme Court reviewed the actions and decisions of the examination authorities to ensure they complied with legal standards.
Culpable Negligence: The allegation that examination authorities were grossly negligent in preventing the exam paper leak, amounting to culpable negligence.
Remedial Measures: The court directed the examination authorities to implement stringent remedial measures to prevent future occurrences of such irregularities.
Allegations of malpractice: The case involved allegations of unethical conduct, including bribery and manipulation of the test process, particularly in the NEET (UG) 2024 examination.
Contempt of Court: The possibility of holding examination authorities in contempt of court if they failed to comply with the court’s directives for ensuring a fair examination process.
Injunction: A court order prohibiting certain actions by the examination authorities, such as releasing the results of the compromised examination until the investigation is complete.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is India’s main investigative agency. It investigates serious crimes, including economic offenses, corruption, and fraud.
Irregularities: The irregularities, primarily involved the leakage of the NEET (UG) 2024 question papers at specific centers in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) and Patna (Bihar). These irregularities raised concerns about the fairness and integrity of the examination process1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) identified 155 students who allegedly benefited from the leaked question papers.
Pleaders: An attorney or advocate, acting on behalf of the petitioners (Vanshika Yadav in present Case), was responsible for presenting their legal claims and arguments to the court.
Court’s adjudication: The final decision or judgment made by a court after listening to all the arguments and looking at all the evidence. It’s the court’s official ruling on what happens in the case. The Supreme Court of India delivered the final legal decision, opting not to cancel the NEET (UG) 2024 exam despite acknowledging that there were leaks in certain centers. The court determined that the paper leak was not pervasive enough to undermine the integrity of the entire examination process.
Remedial Measures: The court directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to implement stringent remedial measures to prevent future occurrences of such irregularities and to ensure the fairness and transparency of the examination process.
The Proof:
Legal Proceedings:
For exposing NEET-UG 2024, Exam Fraud, the case of “Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Others” filed in the Supreme Court of India as a writ petition (Civil) No. 335/2024, stands as a critical legal benchmark. The petitioner, Vanshika Yadav, contested the conduct of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 exam, alleging that the confidentiality of the examination process was significantly breached. Specifically, it was claimed that the question paper was leaked ahead of the examination date. This leak reportedly occurred in multiple examination centers, most notably in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand), Patna (Bihar), and Godhra (Gujarat). The petitioner argued that this malpractice was not confined to isolated incidents but was widespread in nature, affecting a substantial number of candidates and thereby compromising the integrity of the examination.
Case Issue:
Vanshika Yadav, the petitioner, alleged that the integrity of the exam was compromised due to a significant breach of confidentiality. She contended that the NEET question papers were leaked ahead of the examination date at specific centers, notably in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand), Patna (Bihar), and Godhra (Gujarat). This leak purportedly gave certain candidates an unfair advantage, undermining the examination process’s integrity. With over 2.3 million candidates appearing across 4,750 centers in 571 cities, these allegations led to substantial legal challenges. The NTA awarded compensatory marks to 1,563 candidates due to disruptions at specific centers.
Arguments:
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner, Vanshika Yadav, argued that the NEET (UG) 2024 examination’s integrity was severely compromised due to a significant breach of confidentiality and widespread malpractice. They contended that the leaked question papers at specific examination centers, including Hazaribagh (Jharkhand), Patna (Bihar), and Godhra (Gujarat), provided certain candidates with an unfair advantage, thereby undermining the overall fairness of the examination process. This breach of confidentiality, the petitioner claimed, was extensive enough to impact the exam’s credibility on a national scale. As a result, the petitioner sought the cancellation of the NEET (UG) 2024 exam and demanded that a fresh examination be conducted to ensure a fair opportunity for all candidates.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents, including the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Union of India, countered the petitioner’s claims by arguing that there was no systemic breach in the examination process. They asserted that the instances of malpractice were isolated to specific centers and did not reflect a widespread issue. To support their argument, the respondents presented data showing that the results of the NEET (UG) 2024 exam did not exhibit abnormalities or deviations from the patterns observed in previous years. This, they argued, indicated that the integrity of the overall exam remained intact. The respondents further pointed out that compensatory measures had been taken to address disruptions at the affected centers, such as awarding compensatory marks to the impacted candidates. They maintained that these measures were sufficient to mitigate the effects of the malpractice and did not justify the cancellation of the entire exam.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
The Supreme Court’s analysis of the case highlighted several critical aspects of the NEET (UG) 2024 examination process and the allegations of malpractice. The National Testing Agency (NTA) provided a comprehensive account of the chain of custody for the question papers, detailing the stringent security measures from their preparation to distribution. Despite these precautions, the court identified significant vulnerabilities, particularly in the examination centers in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) and Patna (Bihar), where breaches occurred.
The court also noted discrepancies and procedural lapses in centers like Hazaribagh, Sawai Madhopur, and Patna. Interestingly, the success rates in these centers were not abnormally high compared to previous years, suggesting that the malpractice was not systemic and did not substantially alter the overall examination results.
Regarding the award of compensatory marks, the NTA initially based its decision on the disruptions faced by candidates during the exam. However, a subsequent committee recommended conducting a re-exam for the affected candidates, a solution the court found fair and justified. This approach aimed to balance the need for rectifying the immediate disruptions while maintaining the examination’s overall integrity.
Additionally, the court reviewed data analysis conducted by IIT Madras, which showed no evidence of mass malpractice or localized benefits from the alleged leaks. The court dismissed claims of a conflict of interest, as the Director of IIT Madras was not directly involved in the NTA’s operational decisions. This impartial review of data further supported the court’s decision not to invalidate the entire examination.
Overall, the court’s analysis concluded that while there were breaches and lapses, they were not extensive enough to compromise the integrity of the entire NEET (UG) 2024 examination. The Supreme Court directed the NTA to implement stricter measures to prevent such issues in the future, ensuring the transparency and fairness of the examination process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India thoughtfully balances maintaining the integrity of national examinations with addressing the practical challenges of administering them. By rejecting the call for a re-test and opting for specific punitive measures, the Court highlights the importance of protecting the sanctity of exams while minimizing unnecessary disruptions to students’ academic and professional progress. Additionally, the establishment of an expert committee demonstrates a proactive approach to strengthening examination processes, aiming to prevent future malpractice. This judgment not only reinforces the legal frameworks governing competitive exams but also sets a precedent for handling similar cases with a nuanced understanding of their complexities.
Following the alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2024, the Union Education Minister characterized the incident as an “institutional failure of the National Testing Agency (NTA).” In response, the Central Government formed a high-level committee led by former ISRO chairman Dr. K Radhakrishnan to review the NTA’s operations and ensure the fair conduct of exams. This seven-member committee is expected to submit its findings within two months.
Moreover, the Union government promptly removed the NTA chief and placed him on “compulsory wait” in the Department of Personnel and Training. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has also taken over the NEET UG investigation after uncovering evidence of a paper leak in Bihar. This incident is not isolated; investigations by various news sources have revealed about 70 cases of exam leaks, including recruitment and board exams, over the past seven years across 15 states. Many of these incidents have led to judicial proceedings, underscoring a persistent issue in the examination system. Often, paper leaks were not reported promptly, allowing individuals to exploit the situation and secure jobs unfairly. The government’s response highlights the need for robust measures to ensure the integrity and fairness of competitive exams, addressing both immediate and long-term challenges in the education system.
FAQS
Q. 1. What issue does the article primarily focus on?
A.1. The article examines the legal and ethical challenges arising from the alleged exam fraud in the NEET-UG 2024 examination, highlighting the implications for the integrity of national exams and the measures taken to address the issue.
Q. 2. What were the key allegations in the “Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India” case?
A.2. The key allegations included the leakage of question papers and widespread malpractice during the NEET-UG 2024 exam, which led to a petition seeking the cancellation of the exam and a re-test.
Q. 3. How did the Supreme Court respond to the allegations?
A.3. The Supreme Court rejected the call for a re-test and opted for targeted punitive measures, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding examination sanctity while minimizing disruptions to candidates academic and professional lives.
Q. 4. What actions did the government take in response to the incident?
A.4. The Union Education Minister declared the incident an “Institutional failure of the NTA” and established a high-level committee led by former ISRO chairman Dr. K Radhakrishnan to investigate the functioning and fair conduct of examinations by the NTA.
Q. 5. What was the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case?
A.5. The CBI took over the investigation of NEET UG after uncovering evidence of a paper leak in Bihar, aiming to address the alleged fraud and ensure accountability.
