Author: Nyasa Tahim, a student of Vivekananda institute of professional studies, IPU.
Introduction
The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate), commonly known as NEET-UG, serves the gateway to medical education, it holds high stakes for millions of aspirants across India. In 2024, the examination became the focal point of a major controversy following allegations of question paper leaks, manipulation of answer keys, and irregular awarding of compensatory marks to certain candidates. Over 2.3 million students had appeared for approximately 108,000 medical seats nationwide, making the stakes enormous for aspirants, their families, and the medical education system. Alongside the leak allegations, controversy arose over the results: an unusually large cluster of very high scores and an anomalous initial award of compensatory marks to 1,563 candidates drew intense scrutiny and public outrage, with calls for cancellation and a re-test. Given the scale of affected students and the systemic implications (medical college seat allotment, commencement of academic sessions, and future doctor supply), petitioners urged the Hon’ble Supreme Court to either invalidate the 2024 NEET result entirely and order a fresh examination, or, at minimum, to order a re-examination for identified pockets of suspected malpractice. The National Testing Agency (NTA) and Government agencies countered that the irregularities were localised and investigable, and argued strongly against cancelling the entire examination due to the disproportionate harm a retest would cause to millions of honest candidates and the medical education calendar.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, acting on multiple petitions, had to evaluate whether the alleged irregularities were systemic enough to vitiate the entire examination or if they were localized events manageable without a blanket cancellation. The Hon’ble Court’s judgment highlights the delicate balance between safeguarding procedural fairness and ensuring continuity in national medical admissions. It also underscores the judiciary’s role in overseeing large-scale administrative processes while ensuring justice for individual candidates.
Background
NEET-UG has been conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) since 2019 as the central examination for medical admissions in India. The 2024 examination, conducted in May, consisted of 180 multiple-choice questions across Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, carrying a total of 720 marks. Within days of the exam and the declaration of results, allegations emerged from multiple states, including Bihar, Jharkhand, and Gujarat, about leaks and unfair advantages to select candidates. Law enforcement agencies registered FIRs and arrested suspects, including candidates and officials at specific centres. Due to the interstate implications and the scale of the alleged malpractice, the investigations were transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Reports revealed that some candidates had received access to question papers before the exam, while others benefited from unusual compensatory mark awards that appeared anomalous when compared to historical trends. Media reports amplified the controversy, generating public debate on whether the 2024 NEET-UG examination results should be annulled entirely or whether targeted corrective measures would suffice.
The NTA and central government contended that the irregularities were isolated incidents and could be addressed without cancelling the examination for millions of honest candidates. Petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the integrity of the entire examination had been compromised and urged the Supreme Court to order a fresh test.
Issues Raised
The Supreme Court had to consider several critical issues:
- Whether the alleged leaks and compensatory mark manipulations were widespread enough to compromise the integrity of the entire examination, warranting cancellation?
- Whether it was possible to identify candidates who benefited from malpractice and address their cases individually, thereby preserving the results for honest aspirants?
- Whether cancelling the examination would be a proportionate remedy in light of the evidence or whether targeted actions, including penal measures, were sufficient?
- How to safeguard the interests of affected students while ensuring that national medical admissions proceed in a timely manner?
Judgment and Analysis
In its order dated 23 July 2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded a set of preliminary but decisive findings. The Hon’ble Court accepted that paper leaks had occurred at certain centres (notably Hazaribagh and Patna); facts that were not in dispute. The CBI’s status reports, which had been placed before the Court, indicated that the agency had identified about 155 students who appeared to have benefited from the fraud at the two specified centres. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that the CBI’s investigation was ongoing and not yet final. The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on the NEET-UG 2024 examination following widespread allegations of malpractice, including leaks of the question paper, manipulation of answer keys, and the awarding of unexplained compensatory marks to certain candidates. The Court was tasked with determining whether these irregularities were serious enough to invalidate the entire examination or whether targeted corrective action could sufficiently address the problem without affecting millions of honest candidates. Instead of a total cancellation, the Hon’ble Court adopted a surgical approach focused on those who had benefitted from malpractice. It held that candidates found guilty of irregularities would not have any vested right to retain their admissions. Investigative and administrative measures could be taken against them even after counselling and provisional admission. This approach ensured that the rights of honest candidates were preserved while upholding accountability for wrongdoers. The Court directed the CBI to continue its investigation, identify any further beneficiaries, and ensure that appropriate punitive action, including criminal prosecution and disqualification, was taken. This step reflected the Court’s insistence on evidence-based decision-making and a targeted approach to remediation rather than general penalization of all candidates.
Based on the evidence, the Hon’ble Court concluded that cancelling the entire examination would unfairly penalize millions of candidates who had written the exam honestly. Such an action would also disrupt medical admissions across the country, delay academic schedules, and have serious consequences for the healthcare system.
The Hon’ble Court emphasized that students found guilty of cheating would not have any right to retain admissions obtained through these irregularities. Investigative and administrative action could be taken against them even after counselling or provisional admission. The Hon’ble Court directed the CBI to continue its investigations, identify all beneficiaries, and ensure that appropriate punitive action, including disqualification and criminal prosecution, was carried out.
In addition to identifying guilty candidates, the Hon’ble Court addressed technical issues in the examination process. Some questions were found to be ambiguous and potentially misleading. To resolve these issues, an expert panel from IIT Delhi was formulated to review such questions. The National Testing Agency was instructed to revise the answer keys as necessary, and candidates whose marks had been incorrectly awarded were to have their results corrected. Rankings were adjusted accordingly to ensure fairness for all students. These measures were intended to restore confidence in the examination process while avoiding unnecessary disruption.
The judgment highlighted the principle of proportionality, noting that remedies must match the scale of irregularity. Since most candidates had been unaffected by localized breaches, penalizing all students would have been excessive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further recommended institutional reforms to prevent similar incidents in future examinations. It directed the establishment of expert committees to strengthen security protocols, improve question paper handling, and implement better monitoring to prevent leaks. These preventive measures aimed to enhance transparency, maintain examination integrity, and minimize vulnerabilities in the system.
In conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to cancel NEET-UG 2024, recognizing that the irregularities were localized and that corrective measures were sufficient to protect the interests of honest candidates. It ordered the segregation and prosecution of candidates who benefited from malpractice, revision of answer keys, adjustment of rankings, and the introduction of institutional reforms. This judgment demonstrates a balanced, fair, and evidence-based approach to handling large-scale examination disputes and establishes a framework for addressing similar cases in the future.
References
- In re: NEET (UG) Examination, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 393 of 2024, Supreme Court of India (Chandrachud, J., July 23, 2024).
- NDTV, Got NEET Paper Night Before Exam, Memorised Answers: Patna, Hazaribagh Cases, May 2024, https://www.ndtv.com.
- Times of India, Supreme Court Verdict on NEET UG 2024 — Localized Breach, Govt Committee to Issue Exam SOPs, July 2024, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
1 In re: NEET (UG) Examination, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 393 of 2024, Supreme Court of India (Chandrachud, J., July 23, 2024).
2 NDTV, Got NEET Paper Night Before Exam, Memorised Answers: Patna, Hazaribagh Cases, May 2024, https://www.ndtv.com.
3 Times of India, Supreme Court Verdict on NEET UG 2024-Localized Breach, Govt Committee to Issue Exam SOPs, July 2024, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
4 In re: NEET (UG) Examination, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 393 of 2024, Supreme Court of India (Chandrachud, J., July 23, 2024).
5 NDTV, Got NEET Paper Night Before Exam, Memorised Answers: Patna, Hazaribagh Cases, May 2024, https://www.ndtv.com.
