Should a paper-leak trial wait for the investigation against every accused to finish before the court even hears arguments on charge? No, a Delhi court has held. In the CBI-probed NEET-UG 2026 paper-leak case, it rejected an accused’s plea to defer arguments on charge until a supplementary chargesheet is filed, holding that the law mandates an expeditious trial and that the investigation against the already-chargesheeted accused is complete.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has rejected a plea seeking to defer arguments on the point of charge in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2026 paper-leak case, which is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Special Judge Ajay Gupta of the Rouse Avenue Courts, the designated fast-track court dealing with criminal cases arising from paper leaks and the use of unfair means in public examinations, rejected an application by one of the accused seeking that arguments on charge be deferred until a supplementary chargesheet is filed.
What the court held
The court observed that the CBI has a statutory right to carry out further investigation and file a supplementary chargesheet after it is completed, and that this can be done even at the stage of the trial. “It cannot be said that the supplementary charge sheet qua the further investigation permitted by this court cannot be allowed to be filed after framing of the charge,” the court said, holding that the filing of a supplementary chargesheet later was no reason to hold up arguments on charge now.
Noting that the investigation against the 13 chargesheeted accused was complete, the court held that the matter could proceed to hear arguments on the point of charge against them. It added that, given the mandate of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act to conduct such proceedings as expeditiously as possible, the time available before the supplementary chargesheet is filed must be used to hear arguments on charge on the material already on record. The court also noted that the case record was voluminous, running to around 20,000 pages, and would need considerable time for the arguments on charge to be completed.
The newly arrested accused
The court clarified that the interests of the newly arrested accused would be protected. It recorded that, as submitted by the Investigating Officer during the hearing of a remand application, the CBI is expected to file the supplementary chargesheet against the newly arrested accused soon and without unnecessary delay, and that, as soon as it is filed, the accused persons will be given an opportunity to address additional arguments on the point of charge in respect of the new material brought on record. Special Judge Ajay Gupta had taken cognisance of the CBI’s final report against 13 accused on August 12.
The background
NEET-UG is the national entrance examination for admission to medical courses, conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). On May 12, the NTA cancelled the NEET-UG examination that had been held on May 3, amid allegations of a paper leak, and a re-examination was conducted on June 21. The row led to widespread protests by aspirants, and the then Education Minister subsequently resigned. The criminal investigation into the alleged leak was handed to the CBI, and it is that prosecution which is now before the Rouse Avenue court.
Why it matters
The order reflects the balance a trial court must strike between two things: the accused’s interest in not being made to argue charge piecemeal, and the statutory command that paper-leak prosecutions move quickly. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, enacted in response to a spate of leaks in national examinations, requires such cases to be tried expeditiously, and the court read that mandate as a reason to press ahead with arguments on charge against the already-chargesheeted accused rather than wait for the investigation against others to conclude.
The ruling also rests on a settled principle of criminal procedure: the investigating agency’s power to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary chargesheet is not extinguished by the framing of charge, and can be exercised even during the trial. That being so, the prospect of a later supplementary chargesheet does not require the court to keep the existing proceedings in abeyance; the accused against whom that further material is filed will get their opportunity to be heard on charge when it comes.
Nothing has been decided on the guilt of any accused, or even on whether charges will be framed; the court has only declined to postpone the arguments on charge, which will now proceed. The allegations of a paper leak remain to be tested, and all the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The significance of the order is procedural, that a paper-leak trial governed by the Public Examinations Act is to be conducted without avoidable delay, and that the possibility of a future supplementary chargesheet is not, by itself, a ground to defer the hearing on charge.
Court: Special Judge Ajay Gupta, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (designated fast-track court for public-examination paper-leak cases)
Matter: NEET-UG 2026 paper-leak case investigated by the CBI
Order: Application to defer arguments on charge until the filing of a supplementary chargesheet rejected; arguments on charge against the 13 chargesheeted accused to proceed. Newly arrested accused to be heard on charge after the supplementary chargesheet is filed.
Status: Allegations untested; no charges framed yet; presumption of innocence applies.