Breaking News: Supreme Court Directs NTA to Publish Entire NEET 2024 Results masking candidates' identities

New Delhi: While considering the pleas seeking cancellation of the National Eligibility-and-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 examination, the Supreme Court today (July 18) directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to publish the marks obtained by the candidates in the NEET 2024 exam.

However, the Apex Court bench comprising the Chief Justice of India clarified that the marks should be published while ensuring that the identity of the students is masked. 

"The results should be declared separately city and centre- wise. Results will be uploaded by 5PM tomorrow," ordered the Apex Court bench noting that this was important to ensure whether the paper leak was confined to the centres in Patna and Hazaribag or was more widespread.

The bench has listed the matter for further hearing noting that "we have to finalise by Monday." Further, the Court has also sought to view the case diary of Patna Police.

Recently, the Union Government relied on the analytics of NEET-UG 2024 results conducted by IIT Madras to argue that there was no abnormality or "mass malpractice" in the undergraduate medical entrance test.

What Happened at the Hearing on 18th July, 2024: 

The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that CBI was supposed to file its status report. Responding to this, the CJI pointed out that the investigation is going on therefore "If what CBI has told us is revealed, it will affect the investigation. People will become wise..."

At this outset, the CJI pointed out to the petitioners' counsels that they would have to show that the leak was so "systematic" and affected the entire examination to warrant the cancellation of the entire exam.

"If we accept your wider submission, we would like your assistance on which are the lines on which the investigation must happen," noted the CJI.

The petitioners' counsel further stressed on the importance of declaring the results of 1 lakh students who are going to be admitted to the government and private medical colleges.

When the Court questioned regarding the number of available seats, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that 56,000 seats are there in the Government medical colleges and 52,000 seats are there in the private medical colleges.

At this outset, the CJI observed that merely because out of 23 lakh students only 1 lakh will get admitted to the medical colleges, the Court could not order a re-examination. Responding to this, the counsel highlighted that the stake was of only one lakh people and not the remaining 23 lakh. 

Justice Pardiwala sought to know at this outset, out of the 1 lakh eight thousand, who are likely to get admitted, how many approached the Supreme Court as petitioners. The Counsel for petitioners submitted that NTA could give the data.

Senior Advocate Hegde informed the Court that some who are within the 1 lakh eight thousand students approached the Court since they want government seats.

When the CJI questioned about the minimum mark received by the petitioners, the Solicitor General, appearing for the Government, submitted that there are 131 students who do not fall within 1 lakh 8 thousand, who want a re-test and there are 254 petitioners who are within the 1 lakh 8 thousand, who are opposing the re-test.

At this outset, the CJI questioned about the cut-off mark for the 56,000 (government seats) and the 1 lakh eight thousand students who might get admitted to the medical colleges.

Advocate Sanjay Hegde informed the Court that anybody who scores more than 50 percentile qualifies the test. 164 is the cut-off mark and about half the petitioner have the qualification to be allotted a seat. He further pointed out that admission is a dynamic process and some many not opt for medicine and go to IIT. In that case, the figures may come down.

Advocate Hooda, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that one of the directors of IIT Madras is a member of the Governing Body of the NTA and they have run the data analytics taking the entire number. He further argued that IIT Madras report cannot be relied upon.

When the CJI questioned if the analytics has to be done on the restrictive figure of 1 lakh eight thousand, Advocate Hooda for the petitioner submitted that there is a conflict of interest since IIT Madras Director was a member of the governing body of NTA. 

However, the Solicitor General refuted this claim calling it "factually wrong". When the CJi questioned who conducts IIT JEE, the SG informed that this year IIT Madras conducted it.

The CJI sought to confirm if the IIT Chairman was the ex-officio member of the NTA governing body, the counsel for NTA argued that the Governing body had no role in the conduct of the exam. When the CJI asked if this time IIT Madras Director was ex-officio member of NTA governing body, the SG submitted that he had deputed somebody else to attend the meetings and argued that the question of bias might not arise.

At this outset, the Court sought to look at the report of the IIT Madras. Referring to the report, Advocate Hooda for the petitioners submitted that NTA and Govt are attributing two reasons for the exponential inflation in marks- one, there was a reduction of syllabus and two, increase in candidature. He argued that the reply did not give a full disclosure.

He also pointed out that there was both an increase and decrease in the syllabus. Advocate Hooda argued that NTA and Government and the IIT report were not talking about the increase in the syllabus.

Referring to the report, Advocate Hooda for the petitioners argued that the curve was no indication that there was no abnormality because the data was too large, which could not be caught. He further argued that with such a large data of 23 lakg, granular variations could not be seen.

Advocate Hooda further submitted that there were 571 cities and the report said that the toppers were evenly spread. However, the data they provided was only of 17 students. "Why are they shying away? If they have run it for top 100, they should give for top 100 and not just 17," he argued.

On this, the Solicitor General argued that the chart showed that out of students who secured the first 100 ranks. Advocate Hooda questioned why data of only 17 toppers were given.

Taking note of these arguments, the CJI asked the SG, "If you have a break up of top 100 rank, you can give. Which are the cities from which they are?" Responding to this, the NTA counsel referred to the table on top 100 rankers and submitted that the NTA affidavit annexed the details of top 100 ranks.

The SG pointed out that the purpose was to show that the toppers were spread over, just to show that there was no abnormal spike in any particular centre.

Advocate Hooda referred to one Hardayal School from Bahadurgarh where 6 people topped the exam. He pointed out that NTA never disclosed that the question paper taken from Canara Bank was distributed. 

He further pointed out that while the entire country was given papers from SBI, in Hardayal, school paper from Canara Bank was given. He claimed that the principal said that the instruction was that let the students do Canara bank paper. He also argued that everyone in the school got grace marks and because of the extra marks, 6 people got 720 marks and two students from the same centre got 718 marks.

Advocate Hooda demanded that NTA and Government required to come clean on that. "First they said there was delay in distribution. When they were caught, then they said we are having a re-exam and don't go into the issue of grace marks. The question who they gave grace marks to 1563 odd people has not been examined by this court."

He further claimed that NTA held a re-exam to hush up the matter. Responding to this, the CJI observed, "that issue has attained finality. This Court has upheld the re-examination."

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the first instance, they indulged in pick and choose to identify the 1563 candidates. Arguing that Bahadurgarh was a classic example, Advocate Hooda pointed out that these students got a chance to appear in the retest again.

When the CJI questioned out of the 1563 candidates how many made it to one lakh eight thousand, Advocate Hooda submitted that this question was not answered.

"Out of top hundred, AP got seven, Bihar seven, Gujarat seven, Haryana four, Delhi three, Karnataka 6, Kerala 5, Maharashtra 5, TN 8, UP 6, WB 5...So it appears that the spread in the top hundred marks is distributed across the country, 12 states and one UT," observed the CJI.

Responding to this, the Solicitor General submitted that the first 100 rankers were spread across 95 centres located in 56 cities within 18 States/UTs.

When the CJI asked to confirm if 67 students secured 720/720 marks, the SG submitted that the number reduced after the re-test held for 1563 candidates. Thereafter the CJI asked how many of them were in 1563 candidates. NTA responded by saying that 44 toppers were in that list. NTA counsel submitted that 44 were given the marks for the questions having one extra answer as per the NCERT booklet.

"As matter stands now, 61 students get 720/720, out of whom 44 are students who got extra marks for the two correct options for a question. So the number really is 17.," the CJI noted at this outset.

The CJI also sought to know how many students sought to change their centres in the entire exam. Responding to this, the counsel for NTA said that the candidates change centres in the name of corrections. Therefore, during that process, only the possibility of changing happens. "We will never know it. As of now system doesn't catch that," the NTA counsel submitted.

In this regard, the NTA counsel informed the Apex Court that 15,000 students utilised the window for corrections. The CJI questioned that among the 15,000, how many changed their centres and for how many days, the window was open.

The CJI also sought to know if while filing the application forms, the candidates have to opt for the city or the centre. When NTA informed that the Candidates are given he option of the cities, the CJI observed, "So what they can change is only the city. No candidate can choose the centre. Centre is alloted by the system."

NTA informed the Court that the Centre allotment happens only two days before the exam and therefore, nobody knows which centre was going to be allotted. 

In response to the CJI's query of how many candidates corrected the fields within the window, Advocate Hooda submitted that the window for new applications in April 9 & 10 and the NTA and Govt claimed that it was based on an order of Rajasthan HC. However, the HC order was only for one candidate.

NTA informed that 15,000 new applications were received and further submitted that regarding the change of centre, the petitioners have focused only on Godhra. 

"Do we have any data on how many students, out of one lakh eight thousand, had changed their cities? We would like to see the distribution and was the change to any of the suspected areas?" questioned the CJI

The CJI also sought to know if there was any skew between those who registered between April 9 and 10? The Chief Justice also sought to know, "If the HC order was only for one student, how did you open the window for 15,000 new students? Out of those 15,000 students, how many are there in the one lakh eight thousand?"

At this outset, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara for the petitioners submitted that the only issue that required to be considered if re-test was required. However, the CJI observed that the ongoing discussion was the very heart of the issue.

When Advocate Nedumpara referred to the IIT Report as "a lie", the CJI objected to this saying "Don't just use adjectives against a premier institute. Give us core facts."

After the lunch break, the CJI also asked the NTA counsel about the Rajasthan HC order which the NTA cited to open a new window for fresh applications and questioned if the concerned order was for one candidate only.

Responding to this, the SG informed the bench that after receiving several representations, it thought the window should be open as a student-friendly measure. 

"This order was only for one student who didn't pay fee. And what does NTA do? ...allows every one to apply," observed the CJI.

At this outset, the SG informed the Apex Court that they received 15,000 new registrations and out of those 15,094 students, only 44 will get admission to one lakh eight thousand students, who might secure MBBS admission.

The NTA counsel submitted that 12,000 of these 15,000 students failed the test and the Solicitor General submitted that the window was not opened to help anyone in particular, but it was a pro-student measure and only 44 out of the new registrations will get admissions. Further, the Solicitor General argued that the IIT report did not show Jaipur, because there was no increase in the number of toppers compared to last year.

Meanwhile, Advocate Hooda for the petitioners referred to the IIT report and submitted that there was an inflation of marks. He submitted that the number of students who scored between 550 to 720 increased by 77,000.

At this outset, the CJI asked the NTA how many students appeared in the exam in 2022. NTA informed that 17 lakh 64 thousand five hundred seventy appeared in 2022 and 20,38,526 students appeared in 2023. The number increased to 23,33,297 students who appeared in 2024. Taking note of this, the CJI observed that between 2022-2024, the number of candidates increased by 33%.

When the CJI referred to the NTA's argument that there was a reduction in the syllabus, Advocate Hooda submitted that there was a corresponding increase in the syllabus. He relied on a document to support his contention. He further submitted that the increase in the number of candidates in the 550-720 range was five-fold compared to previous years. He referred to it as a "red flag".

The CJI, therefore, asked for concrete document and Advocate Hooda relied on the document showing the increase in syllabus. He showed the topics increased in subjects and submitted that the candidates were notified about this only 5 months ahead of the exam.

Regarding the chain of custody, Advocate Hooda submitted that their case was that question papers were dispatched to the centres on April 24 through a private courier company. It reached the SBI and Canara banks on 3rd May.

The CJI noted that those papers were sent to the SBI/Canara Bank branches in the 571 cities. Noting that they were dispatched on April 24 and received on May 3, the CJI observed that the time gap was about 9 days. 

Explaining the system, the SG informed that two printing presses were there for two papers and confirmed that these two printing presses started distributing papers between April 24-28 for the cities.

The Solicitor General further submitted that CBI has investigated the entire chain from the printers to the centres- how there was sealing, GPS tracking, digital lockers, etc and claimed that there is a 7-layer safety system. 

Advocate Hooda pointed out that for Hazaribagh the dispatch was on April 28 and added that the trunk containing papers was found travelling on an e-Rickshaw on the 3rd May in Hazaribagh under the open sky and it was received by the Principal of the School, who was later arrested by CBI. 

When the CJI questioned how did the petitioners formulate that the leak was widespread and systemic, Hooda submitted that there was a systemic failure in conducting the exam by NTA and this failure was multi-dimensional. He claimed that the transportation of question paper got compromised, and for 6 days the papers remained in the hands of a private courier company. He also alleged that the question papers were transported in an e-rickshaw in Hazaribag and instead of being taken it to the bank, the E-richshaw driver took it to the school. 

Advocate Hooda further claimed that photographs of the e-rickshaw showed carrying the papers and pointed out that the school Principal was arrested for the part of the leak and the said principal was part of the NTA and city coordinator. 

To prove his argument that dissemination of the leaker paper happened on May 3 itself, Advocate Hooda relied on the evidence of Telegram videos that showed that the solved papers were being circulated on May 4 itself.

At this outset, NTA submitted that it was a doctored video. The Solicitor General submitted that Telegram channel has an inbuilt feature that if there is a change, it will be reflected and from that it was known that the video was circulated after the exam.

Opposing this claim that the Telegram video was doctored, Advocate Hooda submitted that the date and time they show was not a date and time which can appear in a Telegram channel. He submitted that it was a watermark and it was not a date and time. 

When Advocate Hooda claimed that the question papers were transported in an e-rickshaw without any guard, the Solicitor General submitted that those were OMR sheets and not question papers.

Referring to the statement recorded by the Bihar Police of an accused, Advocate Hooda argued that the statement showed that the paper leak happened on May 4th. When CJI questioned if they got 161 statements, Advocate Hooda submitted that statements were getting circulated on social media and pointed out that in the counter-affidavit, they said that it was not a certified copy of 161 statement and therefore should be discarded from the evidence. Responding to this, the SG submitted that the translation of the statement was not accurate.

While considering the question when the leak happened, the Court observed that either the paper was leaked before the custody of banks i.e. before May 3rd or the leak happened when the papers left the banks and were bound for the center. 

"Alternative hypothesis that leak happened in custody of banks is possible according to you, which means May 3. Between May 3 and May 5 is a long interval.." observed the CJI

When the CJI asked when the leak took place, the Solicitor General submitted that there was no leak that took place. The CJI, therefore, asked when the breach took place. The SG responded by saying that it was in a particular centre, between 8.02 AM to 9.23 AM when a person went inside, photographed the papern and came out 

"Assuming that happens, according to you that students got papers at 10.15 AM. There are 180 questions. Is it possible that between 9.30 and 10.15 that there are problem solvers and putting them to students in 45 minutes?" questioned the CJI.

The Solicitor General submitted that there were 7 solvers and they divided 25 students each. The questions were jumbled and so the students were made to memorize. 

"The whole hypotheses that entire paper was solved in 45 minutes and given to students is too far fetched," observed the CJI. 

Thereafter, the CJI questioned when the paper left the vault at the bank and at what time it reached the centre. The Solicitor General Submitted that the students only got 2 hours to memorise the questions and that is why out of 18 students, only one student was possibly getting admission. The SG assured that the concerned students would face debarment. He also submitted that the total number of such students would not cross 150. 

At this outset, the CJI questioned about the distance between Patna and Hazaribagh and the SG submitted by saying that one gang member, who was at Hazaribagh sent it by WhatsApp and their model was not to allow the students to take photographs. He further submitted that the parents gave post-dated cheques over and above advance. They knew that if the leak got widespread, the exam would get cancelled. So they asked the students to keep out their mobile phones. 

"What is worrying us is, how much was the period between the breach occurred and the exam? If the time period is 3 days, obviously there is a greater danger," observed the CJI, adding that "Does somebody pay 75,000 for 45 minutes?"

The CJI, thereafter, asked Advocate Hooda to inform about any material indicating a similar method was replicated outside Hazaribagh and Patna. While the SG denied of the existence of any such material, Advocate Hooda submitted that in Godhra, it was agreed that the Geogrpahy lecturer Tushar Bhatt will fill the blank OMR sheets. Common sense says a geography teacher cannot solve it unless he has the paper leaked.

However, the CJI observed that in Godhra, they were arrested before. In this regard, the SG submitted that no one from Godhra was getting admission. Observing that Godhra had nothing to do with paper leak, the CJI further questioned about how many candidates from Godhra came within the last candidates, how many of them had changed centres etc. 

When the CJi observed Godhra to be a localised issue, Advocate Hooda submitted that the paper footprint did not confine to Patna, it travelled. "In Godhra, students had no opportunity. There is no wrongdoing eventually. The process was that the centre-in charge will fill in the blanks and not that they memorize. But that was prevented ultimately," observed the CJI, adding that Godhra could not be placed at the same level as Patna or Hazaribag.

"Then we are only left with the statistics....can we cancel the entire examination on that sole basis?" the CJI asked. Responding to this, Advocate Hooda for the petitioner submitted that the conspiracy was hatched a month ago.

The CJI took note of the submission of the Government that the beach occurred in Hazaribagh school and the Patna breach was linked to Hazaribagh. When the CJI sought to know how the breach was linked to Patna, the SG submitted that a gang member was there in Patna and the Gang ensured that they purchased a new mobile with new SIM so that there was no further leak. 

Meanwhile, the CJI questioned if the paper could be solved within 45 minutes. "Primary breach happens in Hazaribagh. Solving happened in Hazaribagh and sent to Patna. All happened in 45 minutes?" questioned the CJI.

Referring to the Patna FIR, Advocate Sanjay Hegde submitted that as per the FIR, the leak happened on May 4th. Thereafter, the CJI sought to view the case diary of Patna Police.

The CJI inquired about the number of centres in Hazaribagh, the number if students at those centres, and how many of them would fall in the admission qualification.

"Admittedly, there is a breach in Hazaribagh and Patna. We want to know how many students qualify?" questioned the CJI. 

Responding to this, NTA informed the bench that the number was 80.

The CJI observed that it would take up the matter for further hearing on Monday at 10.30 Am, so that it could be concluded by noon. It also sought a copy of the Bihar police report.

When the counsel for the petitioners sought a stay on the counselling, the Solicitor General opposed this by saying that the Counselling would take two to three months and it would start on July 24 or so.

Advocate Hooda urged the Court to direct NTA to declare the entire results. However, the SG opposed this by saying that entire results are not published as it is the personal property of the students. At this outset, the CJI suggested declaring the results with dummy roll numbers in a sequence centre-wise. 

"The petitioners have submitted that it would be appropriate if the results of the NEET-UG 24 exam is published on the website so as to bring about some transparency in the centre-wise..." ordered the Apex Court.

When the Solicitor General said that the centre needed to be masked, the CJI ordered NTA to publish the marks obtained by students in NEET -UG exam 24 exam while making sure that the identity of the students are not revealed.

"We direct the NTA to publish the marks obtained by students in the NEET-UG 24 exam while ensuring that the identity of the students is masked..." ordered the CJI.

When the SG objected to the Centre being published, the CJI noted, "What is happening is..the fact that there is a leak at Patna and Hazaribag is admitted..the question papers had been disseminated. We want to ensure whether this was confined to those centres or widespread. Students are at a handicap because they don't know results. We want the students identity to be masked but let us see centre wise what was the mark pattern."

"The results should be declared separately city and centre- wise. Results will be uploaded by 5PM tomorrow," CJI further added in the order.

When the SG observed that Centre-wise should be deferred, the CJI responded by saying, "No, we have to finalise by Monday."

Previous Details of NEET Hearing Before Supreme Court: 

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that while considering the pleas seeking NEET UG retest, the Supreme Court on July 11 had noted that undoubtedly the NEET paper leak took place and the sanctity of the exam was compromised.

"The fact that there was a leakage of question papers cannot be disputed. Now, what is the consequence of that leak would depend on the nature of that leak," the Chief Justice had earlier observed.

Asking the Centre and NTA to identify the red flags, the bench had hinted at the possibility of holding a limited retest for the beneficiaries of the paper leak

Also Read: No doubt NEET PAPER LEAK took place, Sanctity Was Compromised: Supreme Court