Supreme Court Upholds NEET Exam Results, Orders Review of Security Procedures

Supreme Court, while hearing the batch of matters concerns the validity of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for undergraduate students has pronounced a judgment on a case concerning the integrity of NEET 2024. While the Court declined to order a retest of all candidates, it identified several "administrative and procedural flaws" in the National Testing Agency's (NTA) management of the exam, and charged a seven-member expert committee with strengthening procedures to prevent future irregularities.

Background: While conducting NEET 2024, it became known that the question paper wasleaked or illegally circulated amongst some students prior to the conduct of the exam at Hazaribagh in Jharkhand and in Patna which lead to FIR registrations in Bihar (Economic offences wing), Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Jharkhand., and later When the results were declared by NTA on 4 June 2024, on the recommendation of the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by NTA, the grace marks were awarded to 1563 candidates at certain centres who did not have the opportunity to utilize the entire duration for writing the exam. The investigation into the leak of the paper and the adoption of other unfair means by candidates was transferred from the Bihar State police to the Economic Offences Unit, than finally to Central Bereau of Investigation, and many Writ Peititons were filed seeking the direction for cancellation of the NEET 2024 exam.

In a 63-page judgment, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, writing for a three-judge panel, concluded that the standard for ordering a new exam –– that the sanctity of the exam had been compromised at a systemic level, making it impossible to separate students who benefited from cheating from those who did not –– had not been met. The Court reached this conclusion after reviewing evidence from the NTA, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and an independent analysis of exam results conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras.

The Court noted that instances of cheating did occur in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand and Patna, Bihar, where portions of the exam were leaked in advance. The Court also observed that twelve testing centers distributed the wrong exam to students, and four of these centers failed to correct the error. However, data from these cities did not show a statistically significant increase in the number of students who performed well on the exam, compared to previous years. The Court also disputed the petitioners' claim that reopening registration for the exam in April had benefited students who already had access to leaked portions of the exam. The success rate of students who registered during this later period, the Court noted, was not statistically abnormal.

While the Court ultimately upheld the results of the 2024 NEET, it expressed concern over irregularities in the NTA’s administration of the exam, noting that “the manner in which NTA has organised the exam this year gives rise to serious concerns.” The Court observed that NTA had at times used e-rickshaws to transport exam materials, writing that the “use of e-rickshaws for transporting question papers to examination centres raises concerns about the security and reliability of paper-handling procedures.” The Court also expressed concern that NTA had not established a firm timeline for when testing centers must seal completed exams, writing, “In the absence of a stipulation in this regard, dishonest persons may tamper with the OMR sheets even after the candidates have submitted them and exited the exam hall.”

The Court also expressed concern over the NTA’s initial decision to award “compensatory marks” to 1563 students who were unable to utilize the full three hours and twenty minutes allotted for the exam. While a subsequent review committee recommended the cancellation of these compensatory marks, and a re-test was held for affected students, the Court stated that “a body such as NTA which is entrusted with immense responsibility in relation to highly important competitive exams cannot afford to misstep, take an incorrect decision, and amend it at a later stage.”

Coram: CJI Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Details: Writ Petition (Civil) No 335 of 2024.
Between: Vanshika Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors
DOJ: 02-08-2024