Author: Hamna Fahad, Faculty of Law Aligarh Muslim University
Abstract
The Supreme Court of India rules after four hectic days of hearings that the 2024 NEET UG examination conducted on May 5 will not be cancelled and also clears the statement that there was no system flaw in the integrity of the examination process, despite allegations of a paper leak and other irregularities. The bench- in Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra- compounded it all by stating that a retest would be impractical and full of consequences. Here are the main legal arguments, proof submitted, reliance on other case laws, and what the Court finally decided.
Introduction
The Supreme Court faced high-stakes litigation from students and parents concerned about alleged malpractices during the NEET UG 2024 exam. The petitioners claimed widespread irregularities, including a paper leak, wrong distribution of question papers, and inadequate registration checks. However, the Court ruled in favour of upholding the exam, citing insufficient evidence of systemic tampering.
Key Legal Arguments
1. Petitioners’ Claims
- Supporting Tanvi Dubey, it was put forth that removal of grace marks for one disputed question would affect more than four lakh students.
- Elderly Advocate Narendar Hooda pointed out “massive” malpractice when students travel to centres known as coaching hubs where cheating is said to be rampant.
- Hooda also referred to a similar case, Tanvi Sarwal v. CBI (2015), where the Court had ordered a retest for the All-India Pre-Medical Test due to leaks.
2. Respondents’ Defence
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the National Testing Agency (NTA), stating that there was no systemic leak or malpractice. He further clarified that suspicious student travel was owing to cities like Kota being academic hubs.
• Mehta acknowledged a distributional flaw in 12 centers but highlighted the low impact (only 12 of the 4,750 centers).
• The CBI probe, led by Additional Director A.Y.V. Krishna, vindicated a paper leak in Hazaribagh but said it affected only 155 students and wasn’t extensive.
Evidence and Proof:
1. Answers to Questions in Dispute
- The Court relied upon an expert committee headed by the Director of IIT Delhi. The committee held that the correct answer to a question in dispute was: “Statement 1 is correct, but Statement 2 is incorrect.” Students who had been given marks for the wrong alternative answer were now going to have marks deducted.
- The Court rejected the plea of petitioners to allow the marks to stand. The Court decided that academic correctness was imperative.
2. Question Paper Leak Investigation
- The CBI produced a timeline of the leak in Hazaribagh, which led to Pankaj Kumar, who had compromised Oasis School security and circulated the paper among agents; however, only 32 of the 155 students exposed were identified.
- Solicitor General Mehta produced statistics revealing low qualification rates at the centers where cheating was supposed to be rampant, weakening charges of mass malpractice.
3. Error in Question Paper Distribution Summary
- Mehta admitted the human error of issuing wrong papers at 12 centers. Only at eight centers, the students completed the wrong paper, but the same was marked.
- New measures by NTA, including a committee with Dr. K. Radhakrishnan as the committee head, were presented to prevent such errors in the future.
Legal Precedents:
1. Tanvi Sarwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015)
- The same case was cited when 44 students had benefited from a leak, and the case ordered nationwide retest. In the present situation, the Supreme Court differentiated it from the said position. The quantum involved is meager, and the nature is localized in the NEET UG 2024 leak.
2. Article 226 – High Courts’ Writ Jurisdiction
- The bench directed individual petitioners to approach the High Courts under Article 226, who have jurisdiction to redress grievances during the infringement of fundamental rights.
Court’s Conclusion:
Chief Justice Chandrachud delivered the ruling saying that there is no evidence to prove the systemic malpractice, which is sufficient to warrant a retest. The disruption of medical admissions and the “cascading effects” of an education weighed in. The Court certified NTA’s efforts at improving security while maintaining exam results but with limited proven irregularities.
FAQs
1. SC verdict on NEET UG 2024 Exam ruling
The court refused to cancel the exam and passed a verdict stating that the leakage of the paper did not harm the entire integrity of the exam.
2. Why did the Court not order a retest?
The Court could not establish evidence of the fact that some systemic breach had happened. A retest would have brought in major repercussions for 23 lakh students, thereby hogging a significant part of the medical admission process.
3. What did happen to the contentious issue?
An expert committee ensured the right answer, and students who gave marks for the wrong option will be deprived of five marks.
4. What action NTA suggested in order to avoid such problems in future?
The NTA has also constituted a committee headed by Dr. K. Radhakrishnan with strengthening the exam security measures to minimize the human error
5. Can the affected students file cases?
Yes, with specific grievances against them, students can claim redressal from High Courts under Article 226.
