Author: Triasha Mishra, Adamas University
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/triasha-mishra-3a94a4303?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
TO THE POINT
Because of persistent claims of paper leaks, systemic unfair practices, and controversial reservation policies, the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, or NEET, has become a major focus of litigation in India. Following numerous allegations of question paper leaks and scoring irregularities, the 2024 NEET-UG exam came under intense public and legal scrutiny. Numerous petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court and several High Courts, calling for a reexamination, accountability from the National Testing Agency (NTA), and transparency in the evaluation process.
At the same time, NEET’s reservation policy is still being challenged in court. The current framework, according to critics, skews merit-based selection and exacerbates educational inequality, particularly because it includes reservations for economically disadvantaged groups like EWS. However, proponents contend that in order to guarantee underprivileged communities fair access to medical education, affirmative action is required.
As it strikes a balance between procedural fairness, social justice, and merit, the judiciary’s role has grown in importance. For the public to trust NEET and India’s medical education system again, these legal developments highlight the urgent need for examination governance reforms as well as a more open, safe, and inclusive framework for education policies.
ABSTRACT
The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), a centralized exam for admission to medical programs in India, has become increasingly controversial due to persistent malpractice claims, paper leaks, and disagreements over its reservation policies. The 2024 NEET-UG exam triggered new legal and public discussions after reports of inconsistent results and paper leaks. These discussions raised serious questions about the credibility of the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the fairness of the selection process. The many petitions that have been filed in different courts, asking for either a reexamination or a thorough investigation into the irregularities, have highlighted the vulnerability of the current examination procedures.
NEET’s reservation policy has been the subject of legal scrutiny in addition to procedural issues. Critics contend that the current system may erode meritocracy and disproportionately impact aspirants from general categories, despite the inclusion of categories such as EWS, SC/ST, and OBC aiming to promote social equity. Today, the judiciary must strike a balance between the need for a transparent, merit-based admissions process and the constitutional guarantees of equality and affirmative action.
In order to preserve the integrity of medical education in India, this abstract highlights the ongoing legal and policy issues surrounding NEET, highlighting the necessity of systemic changes in examination governance and a more equitable framework.
LEGAL JARGOAN
A number of legal jargon is necessary to comprehend the fundamental issues in the ongoing NEET and education policy litigations. Under Articles 32 and 226 petitioners have petitioned the courts through writ petitions; because of their nationwide significance, some cases have been filed as Public Interest Litigations (PILs). To stop counseling and admissions, legal remedies like stay orders have been sought. In order to force the NTA to guarantee accountability and transparency, the petitioners have used writs such as mandamus. Affirmative action and positive discrimination are major topics of discussion. The Basic Structure Doctrine is used by opponents of the EWS quota to argue that excessive reservations violate constitutional principles and undercut meritocracy. These legal terms capture the intricate relationship between social justice, administrative fairness, and constitutional validity that lies at the core of the judicial examination of NEET.
PROOF
1) Claims of Paper Leaks (NEET-UG 2024)• Following multiple reports that indicated there may have been paper leaks in Bihar and other regions, the Bihar Police’s Economic Offences Unit (EOU) verified arrests connected to a NEET paper leak ring. In May and June of 2024, petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court requesting the cancellation and rescheduling of the exam.
2) Inequitable Behavior & Inconsistencies in Scoring: Given that several high scorers received statistically unlikely scores of 720/720, students were concerned about exaggerated scores.
* The centres of 6 students were also same among those 67 students who scored full marks.
3) Intervention by the Judiciary
* The Supreme Court agreed to consider requests for a reexamination even though it declined to halt the counseling process (as of mid-June 2024).The Court sent notices to the NTA requesting an explanation and openness regarding NEET’s operations.
4) The 10% EWS quota in the 103rd Constitutional Amendment has come under fire for violating the basic structure doctrine. Several writ petitions have argued that excessive reservation may reduce merit and make it more difficult for deserving general category candidates to be admitted.
CASE LAW
1) Union of India v. Christian Medical College (2016)
Reference: (2016) 4 SCC 342
• By highlighting uniform standards and preventing malpractice in both private and public medical colleges, the Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of NEET as a single entrance exam for medical admissions.
2) Union of India v. Janhit Abhiyan (2022)
Citation: (2022) 10 SCC 1
• This case maintained the 10% EWS quota in employment and education, which was established by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. The Court decided that economic factors can serve as a legitimate justification for reservations and that they don’t conflict with the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
3) State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
Citation: AIR 1951 SC 226
• A landmark case on reservation and merit, where the Supreme Court held that caste-based reservation in educational institutions was unconstitutional under Article 29(2), leading to the First Constitutional Amendment.
4) Union of India v. Indra Sawhney (1992)
Reference: AIR 1993 SC 477
• This case established the 50% cap on total reservations and upheld OBC reservations, which are still important points of reference in the current NEET quota discussions.
CONCLUSION
Deeper structural problems with India’s educational and testing system are reflected in the NEET litigation. Public confidence in the National Testing Agency and the validity of competitive national exams has been severely damaged by claims of paper leaks, unfair evaluation procedures, and a lack of transparency. Concurrently, substantial legal and ideological debates concerning striking a balance between meritocracy and social justice have been triggered by the ongoing constitutional debate surrounding reservation policies, particularly the inclusion of the EWS quota.
Although courts are now crucial in tackling these problems, the fundamental problems cannot be solved by their intervention alone. Comprehensive exam governance reform, enhanced security measures, and an open, accountable system that guarantees equity for all applicants are desperately needed. Only then will NEET be able to achieve its goal of maintaining constitutional values while guaranteeing an inclusive, merit-based path to medical education.
FAQS
Q1: What are the legal issues surrounding NEET 2024?
A: Claims of paper leaks, unfair marking, and inconsistent results have put NEET 2024 under investigation. Numerous court petitions have been submitted calling for a reexamination and investigation of the anomalies.
Q2: What part does the Supreme Court play in matters pertaining to NEET?
A: A petition concerning the conduct, evaluation, and reservation policies of NEET is heard by the Supreme Court. It has admitted cases for in-depth hearings on the alleged malpractices, but it has also permitted counseling to continue.
Q3: Why are NEET reservation policies controversial?
A: The reservation system is under attack for allegedly violating the 50% reservation cap and undermining merit-based admissions, particularly the 10% EWS quota.
Q4: What changes are being called for?
A: Experts and students are calling for changes to the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) operations, greater transparency, and stronger security measures during exams.
