[Exclusive Interview on RE-NEET] “Grateful to CJI, Despite the Conclusion Going Against Us”: Snr Adv Narendra Hooda (Counsel for the Petitioner)

LawChakra Exclusive Interview on RE-NEET | “It was gratifying to see the Chief Justice’s bench give us a full hearing. The government and NTA remained in denial, which complicated the matter. Despite the conclusion going against us, the thorough hearing allowed us to present all our points.”: Senior Advocate Narendra Hooda

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Supreme Court announced on Friday, August 2, that it cannot mandate the re-conduct of NEET-UG 2024 due to a lack of sufficient evidence indicating a systemic leak or malpractice that would undermine the examination’s integrity.

In addition, the Court expanded the scope of the Centre-appointed panel, headed by former ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan, to review the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) (NEET-UG), and to recommend examination reforms.

The top court has set a deadline of September 30 for the committee to submit its report on various measures to address deficiencies in the examination system.

A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra provided detailed reasons for its July 23 order refusing to cancel the controversial NEET-UG 2024 examination.

Senior Advocate Narendra Hooda, speaking on the matter of RE-NEET Controversy on Lawchakra’s Live Interview, highlighted–

Interviewer: Welcome, sir, to our platform. We are truly honored to have you here. To begin with a brief introduction, Senior Advocate Narender Hooda represented the petitioners in the NEET hearing, leading the fight for the students. We are eager to learn more about his experience and insights. Welcome, sir. Could you please explain a bit about the NEET matter, how it started, and its progression?

Narender Hooda: This NEET matter began with news reports from Patna about a paper leak. The Patna police registered an FIR and began investigating. They found a burnt question paper with a unique serial number, which led them to a school in Hazaribagh.

The investigation revealed that the original question paper wasn’t stolen; instead, a photograph was taken and distributed. This was how the police reached the Hazaribagh school, discovering that a girl there had the original question paper.

The first petition was filed before the Supreme Court during the vacations, where the Chief Justice’s bench issued a notice because the case was just beginning to unfold. The initial petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, was heard by the Chief Justice’s bench, and the investigation transitioned from the Bihar police to the Economic Offenses Wing and then to the CBI.

Interviewer: As the matter progressed in the courts, several other issues emerged, such as students being given grace marks and retakes of the exam. Could you elaborate on these issues and their impact on the case?

Narender Hooda: There were significant systemic flaws. For example, wrong question papers were distributed in some centers. In Sawai Madhopur, a candidate received a paper in the wrong medium. The NTA only realized this from social media at 4:30 PM, and they decided to hold a reexamination the same day. This inconsistency in decision-making compromised the examination’s integrity.

In Bahadurgarh, Haryana, they distributed both SBI and Canara Bank question papers, then midway decided to withdraw the SBI paper. Initially, 1,563 students were given grace marks, which were later retracted when questioned. This erratic decision-making by the NTA was a significant issue.

Interviewer: Considering the order that has come, is there any possibility of a review?

Narender Hooda: Though the Supreme Court acknowledged systemic flaws and security lapses, it recorded that the paper leak was confined to Hazaribagh and Patna. Unless new, compelling evidence emerges indicating a widespread leak, there is little scope for a review.

Interviewer: Do you think there’s a contradiction between the Supreme Court’s concerns and their final order?

Narender Hooda: The court focused primarily on the leak aspect, despite systemic failures in conducting the examination. For instance, there was no standard operating procedure for sealing OMR sheets post-examination. The court noted these flaws but concluded that the examination’s overall integrity wasn’t completely compromised.

Interviewer: Given the number of students taking NEET and the systemic issues you’ve described, how does this compare with other exams like UPSC?

Narender Hooda: It’s possible that unfair means have been used in NEET for some time. Certain centers, like those in Sikar, consistently perform exceedingly well, raising suspicions. After exams, the lack of immediate sealing and the involvement of private institution staff pose risks of tampering.

Interviewer: Do you think the Supreme Court’s order will lead to significant changes within the NTA?

Narender Hooda: It depends on the government’s will to implement corrective measures. The Supreme Court has directed steps to ensure transparency, but the actual changes depend on the government’s response.

Interviewer: Should NTA continue to conduct such critical exams?

Narender Hooda: Frankly, I don’t think NTA, in its current form, is capable. It needs substantial improvement or a different organization with a better structure should take over.

Interviewer: Was there any indication during the hearing that NTA officials might be involved in the paper leak?

Narender Hooda: Investigation reports didn’t share this information with us. NTA operates with limited staff and outsources many functions, leading to questionable accountability and responsibility.

Interviewer: What broad measures can ensure the integrity of competitive exams in India?

Narender Hooda: We need a proper structure with government involvement. Using private institutions is not inherently wrong, but strict government monitoring is essential to avoid malpractice.

Interviewer: Should a constitutional body handle competitive exams?

Narender Hooda: It’s not necessarily about being a constitutional body. It’s about having competent people and strict processes in place.

Interviewer: Could you share your experience of arguing this significant case?

Narender Hooda: It was gratifying to see the Chief Justice’s bench give us a full hearing. The government and NTA remained in denial, which complicated the matter. Despite the conclusion going against us, the thorough hearing allowed us to present all our points.

Interviewer: Any advice for young lawyers who look up to you?

Narender Hooda: Find a good mentor, be serious about your profession, and spend time in court to learn. This profession yields good fruits but requires patience.

Interviewer: Thank you very much, sir, for your time and insights. We look forward to following your work and sharing it with our audience.

Narender Hooda: Thank you.

WATCH INTERVIEW HERE

The interview with Senior Advocate Narender Hooda highlights several critical issues surrounding the NEET-UG 2024 controversy.

• Systemic Failures and Lapses: Hooda pointed out numerous systemic failures within the NTA, including improper handling of question papers, inconsistencies in decision-making, and lack of standard operating procedures. These issues are severe as they compromise the integrity and fairness of the examination process, which is crucial for a test that impacts millions of students’ futures.
• Inconsistent Decision-Making: The decision-making process of the NTA, as described by Hooda, seems erratic and poorly managed. Instances such as the delayed realization of issues via social media and the subsequent same-day reexaminations raise questions about the organization’s preparedness and capability to handle such a large-scale examination.
• Denial and Delayed Action: The NTA and the government’s initial denial of any leaks and their subsequent slow response to address the issues point to a significant problem in handling crises. Immediate acknowledgment and transparent actions are essential to maintain trust in the examination system.
• Need for Structural Reform: Hooda emphasized the necessity for substantial reforms within the NTA or possibly the creation of a new body to manage such examinations. This suggestion seems logical given the recurring issues and the high stakes involved in the NEET exams.
• Government and Judicial Response: While the Supreme Court has taken steps to address some of these issues, including appointing a committee to review the NTA’s functioning, the effectiveness of these measures will depend on the government’s willingness to implement the recommended reforms seriously. The lack of stringent actions might suggest a leniency that could undermine the process of making necessary changes.
• Role of Private Institutions: The involvement of private institutions and individuals in the exam process, as described, introduces potential risks. While private participation is not inherently wrong, robust government oversight is essential to prevent malpractices and ensure accountability.
• Advice for Young Lawyers: Hooda’s advice for young lawyers to find good mentors, be serious about their profession, and spend time learning in courtrooms is valuable. It emphasizes the importance of practical experience and guidance in building a successful legal career.

Overall, the NEET-UG 2024 case sheds light on significant gaps in the current examination system’s administration and highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms to ensure fairness, transparency, and integrity in competitive examinations in India.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on NEET

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES