The Court directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to address various queries raised during the hearing regarding petitions alleging malpractices and paper leaks in the NEET-UG, 2024 exam.
NEW DELHI: Today (8th July): The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the alleged leakage of the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test-Under Graduate Exam, 2024 (NEET-UG, 2024) question paper on social media and Telegram channels.
The court emphasized that if such leaks have indeed occurred widely, they jeopardize the exam’s integrity, and those benefiting from the leak must be identified rigorously. There is a possibility of a retest being necessary if the leak is confirmed to be widespread.
The Court directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to address various queries raised during the hearing regarding petitions alleging malpractices and paper leaks in the NEET-UG, 2024 exam.
Numerous petitions, including those involving Alakh Pandey, also known as Physics Wallah, have been filed seeking cancellation of the exams. During the proceedings, the Court issued notices and consolidated all related matters for the NTA’s response.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra remarked that the court will examine several crucial factors based on the emerging data:
- Whether there has been a breach affecting the exam’s sanctity.
- Whether any alleged breaches occurred systematically.
- Whether the breach has compromised the exam’s integrity.
- Whether it’s feasible to distinguish between students who benefitted from the fraud and those who did not.
- The timing of the initial question paper leak.
- How the question papers were leaked or distributed.
- The time gap between the leak and the actual exam.
These considerations are pivotal as the court deliberates on the petitions concerning malpractices and alleged paper leaks in the NEET-UG, 2024 exam.
The Court instructed the NTA to provide responses on specific inquiries, including:
- Details regarding when the alleged question paper leak first occurred and how the leaked papers were accessed.
- Steps taken thus far to identify those who benefited from the leak.
- Information on how the leak was disseminated, with an expectation for an investigative officer to present a status report on these matters.
Additionally, the Court directed the CBI to submit a status report on the FIRs filed in relation to the incident. Senior Advocate Narender Hooda represented the petitioner and presented a timeline of events to the Court, noting that on May 4th, a Telegram channel disclosed the question paper along with answers.
Hooda highlighted NTA’s acknowledgment of incorrect distribution of question papers, mentioning two sets prepared by NTA—one stored at Canara Bank for contingency and another at SBI for actual use. Due to an error, the initial set from Canara Bank was mistakenly distributed, causing significant inconvenience to students before it was rectified.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud queried,
“Out of these 67 candidates, how many benefited from grace marks?
Also, in 1563 cases, 6 students scored a perfect 720 out of 720. Why do you assert a re-test is necessary?”
Senior Advocate Narender Hooda responded, noting that FIRs had been lodged in Patna, Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and Maharashtra. CJI Chandrachud then asked if it was acknowledged that the question paper had indeed been leaked.
Hooda confirmed, mentioning a ‘gang’ identified in Bihar Police’s FIR, where accused individuals allegedly sold PDF files and arranged for printed copies via school Wi-Fi printers, subsequently helping groups of candidates to memorize the questions.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud posed detailed questions to the NTA’s counsel:
“When were the question papers taken out of the locker and when were they originally placed there?” “How many students appeared for the exam and what was the specific timing?”
“How are papers distributed abroad? Through diplomatic bags or couriers?”
“When were the question papers sent to SBI and Canara Bank?” “When and where were the question papers prepared and which printing press was used?”
“What were the transportation arrangements to the printing press?”
He remarked on the implications of the timing of the leak relative to the exam:
“If the time lag between the leak and the exam was short, it questions the need for a retest. If wide, it suggests widespread leakage affecting sanctity.”
“If distinguishing between affected and unaffected students is impossible, a retest might be necessary.”
Regarding the breach of exam integrity:
“It’s clear there has been a leak.””We need clarity on the extent and nature of the leak.” Steps must be taken to identify beneficiaries ruthlessly.”
Highlighting the potential use of technology:
“Can cyber forensic units bring confidence through data analytics?” A multi-disciplinary committee with top experts is essential.”
CJI directed the SG:
“Take instructions from the Government.” “Can we use data analytics and cyber forensic units?” “Appoint a nodal counsel for consolidated submissions.”
These statements reflect the Chief Justice’s thorough scrutiny and the court’s focus on preserving the integrity of the NEET-UG exam amidst allegations of widespread malpractice and leaks.
The NTA responded to the allegations surrounding NEET-UG, 2024, explaining that the candidates scoring full marks benefited from a syllabus reduction aimed at reducing exam pressure. They emphasized that only a small number of candidates were implicated in the alleged paper leak, suggesting that cancelling the exam would be counterproductive.
Similarly, the Union of India argued that without substantial evidence of widespread breach of confidentiality, cancelling the exam would be unjustified.
The Supreme Court has also been addressing petitions seeking CBI and ED investigations into the matter. Earlier, on June 20, 2024, the Court halted proceedings in multiple petitions filed across Rajasthan, Calcutta, and Bombay High Courts.
On June 13, 2024, the Court approved conducting a re-examination for 1563 candidates who were awarded compensatory marks, with the retest scheduled for June 25, 2024.
This decision followed a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Jaripiti Kartheek, expressing concerns over the normalization formula used to grant compensatory marks, particularly noting the time constraints faced by candidates during the exam.
Additionally, the Court addressed transfer petitions by the NTA seeking consolidation of cases related to malpractice allegations in NEET-UG, withdrawing those pertaining to compensatory marks after the June 13 decision.
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition from Ayushi Patel, an exam aspirant accused of submitting forged documents, affirming that authorities have the right to take legal action as per the law.
The Court directed the NTA and Union of India to submit their responses by July 10, 2024, with the next hearing scheduled for July 11, 2024.
Case Title: Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
