Breaking News: Supreme Court junks Pleas Seeking Re-NEET
New Delhi: Putting an end to the ongoing litigations regarding the National Eligibility-and-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 Examination, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra today dismissed the pleas seeking the re-conduction of the NEET UG 2024 examination due to the allegations of paper leak.
Observing that there was no systemic breach for scrapping the entire exam held on May 5th, 2024, the top court bench clarified that there would be no re-exam of NEET.
"In arriving at the ultimate conclusion, the Court is guided by well-settled test on whether it is possible to segregate the tainted student from those who do not suffer from any taint ... If investigation reveals the involvement of an increased number of beneficiaries, then those who are suspects at present stage (may be pursued) ... Data on record is not indicative of a systemic leak of the question paper which would indicate a disruption of the sanctity of the exam," the bench ordered.
"For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that ordering the cancellation of the entire NEET UG 2024 exam is neither justified on application of settled principles propounded by the decisions of this court on the basis of material on record," it further noted.
Pleas Seeking Re-NEET:
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that during the last hearing of the case on July 18, the Apex Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had asked the National Testing Agency (NTA) to publish the marks obtained by all the candidates in the NEET UG 2024 exam while ensuring that the identity of the students was masked.
Yesterday i.e. on July 22nd, 2024, the counsels for the petitioners completed their arguments. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeking a re-NEET, several counsels including Advocate Hooda, Advocate Helge and Advocate Nedumpara opined that there should be a re-test, at least for the 13 lakh candidates who qualified in the exam by scoring the cut-off 164 marks.
Hearing on 23rd July, 2024:
When the Solicitor General sought to know if the Court would be considering individual grievances, the CJI noted, "those candidates who may have some individual grievances we may leave it them to move the HC . I don't think the remit of this court is to start looking at individual grievances. We will detag those matters."
Meanwhile, Advocate Hooda, appearing for the petitioners pointed out that in some centres, the question paper was given in different medium of language and later those candidates were allowed another examination on the same day from 6 PM to 9PM. So, Hooda argued that attempting the same paper twice defeated the integrity of the examination.
Submission by NTA:
The Solicitor General pointed out that the Court was considering an issue where approximately 24 lakh students were involved. There were altogether 4750 centres, he pointed out, adding that this would be a relevant figure to examine a pan-India cross-country impact.
Centre & City-Wise Sucess Rate:
He referred to the data in 2022, 2023, and 2024 to show whether there was any mark, jump or rise that would indicate if there was a pan-India impact. Referring to the concept of "percentile", he argued that the young students were unnecessarily getting tensed because of the wrong narrative.
Mentioning that this year, the qualifying percentile was 164 marks, he pointed out that out of 24 lakh students who appeared in the test, 12.5 lakhs were below the 164 cut-off marks and 12.5 lakhs were above 164.
The SG highlighted that the cut-off last year was 137 and therefore, this indicated that this year's number of students increased, the students might have been more hardworking and the syllabus was sliced out. He also pointed out that for these 12.5 lakh qualified students, there were only 1 lakh 8 thousand seats.
Thereafter, he submitted the centre-wise data of qualified candidates and pointed out the success rate was quite similar to last year with slight increase or decrease in the figures. He argued that there was no "mark spike" which may lead to any conclusion and contended that the marking pattern almost remained consistent.
He submitted that there is an increase in some cities from 2022 to 2023 to 2024 and this increase was proportionate. He also referred to the success ratio and argued that it could not be concluded that the candidates were going to some specific centres to get benefits. Otherwise, the success ratio would jump.
In case of Bihar and Patna, he pointed out that the success rate was 5.53% in 2024 and in earlier years it remained consistent with 2 or 3% plus or minus everywhere. In Hazaribagh, the success rate this year was 4.61%, in Belgavi, where it was claimed the students were shifting to mass copying, the success rate was 2.5%.
In terms of the qualifying percentile, he pointed out that in Bihar, Patna, 49.22% were qualified and Jharkhand, Hazaribagh, Punjab etc do not come in the highest bracket of more than 80%. Giving centre-wise breakup, he submitted that in Gurukul International School, altogether 715 appeared and only 101 ranked within the first 56,000. The success ratio was 14.30% and for those ranking between 1 lakh and 8 thousand, the success rate was 21.16%. He submitted that in the case of Sikar, the total success rate was 19.22% and it was 19.19% in the previous year.
On the issue of opening of window for new registration, the SG submitted that this was done because NTA had received representations from students who could not register and argued that it did not indicate any wrongdoing.
He submitted that out of 24 lakh, 14,000 applied for the change of city. The SG pointed out that these students were spread across 4,020 centres and if one centre was offering reward, it should have been concentrated therein. However, this did not happen.
Address Change:
When the CJI sought to know if any documents were needed for the change of centre, the SG submitted that no documents are required since NTA does not consider why a particular city is selected.
Responding to the CJI's question that if domicile is required, the SG submitted that there is no domicile factor. He also argued that in absence of any spike in marks or ranks, the change of city does not indicate any cross-country manipulations. He submitted that the success rate among the 14,000 was 6 percent approximately.
Regarding the 1563 candidates who appeared for the retest, the SG submitted that 816 appeared for retest and argued that some of those students were meritorious and they were okay with the race marks being taken away. He also submitted that the success rate among these 1563 candidates was 1.63 percent.
Canara Bank Question papers:
At this outset, the CJI questioned how many centres got the Canara Bank stored papers. Submitting that there were two categories, the SG pointed out that some centres chose to continue with the Canara Bank papers and the paper was at the same difficulty level with the SBI stored question papers.
When the CJI observed that the data suggested a lesser success rate of the Canara bank papers, the SG submitted that it depended upon the caliber of students as well.
"How was Canara Bank (question papers) distributed ? ... Who authorised the city coordinator?" the CJI sought to know.
In response to this, the SG submitted that there were human errors which happen while dealing with 24 lakh students. However, he submitted that the letter of authorisation happens digitally and it is to be printed and sent to the bank. He further submitted that handing over from the bank to the city coordinator is recorded in CCTV cameras.
He argued that the system as a whole has worked except for human error at 0.3 percent centres i.e. 8 out of 4753 centres.
NEET Investigation:
Referring to the report's content, the SG argued that there were seven layers of security at different layers. He pointed out the sealed envelope and submitted that this is one-time wearable. Therefore, once it is opened, it cannot be re-packed.
He submitted that from Oasis school, one person entered between 8.02 and 9.23 and opens one of the truck from behind and gives it to the solvers. There were eight solvers and 20-25 questions were distributed among them, ensuring that they do not carry any mobile phones. After memorising the exercise, they burned the paper. But one piece remained unburnt and this was recovered by Bihar police. He submitted that in the middle of the paper was one number belonging to a girl who had already complained that the paper she received was sealed using lighter.
When the CJI sought to know why CBI followed this lead, the SG submitted that it was because of the number, which belonged to only one person. In response to the CJI's query about where the number was recovered from, the SG informed that it was recovered from the place where the students were brought in the morning of May 5th. The papers came in Patna by 10.30-45 in two tranches.
The SG claimed that they have CCTV footage showing that those who assisted malpractices gathered for the purpose of going to school and came back to the meeting point again and disbursed to the respective centres, not the school.
Meanwhile, the official present in court clarified that the girl to whom the paper was given during the exam was a genuine candidate. She did not raise the issue with the invigilator, but subsequently flagged the issue to CBI and stated that she received a paper that was sealed with a lighter. The paper was not taken out, it was photographed/ reprinted and given to paper solvers.
In response to the CJI's query about the exam centre of the girl, the official submitted that she was in Hazaribagh Oasis School. Further it was submitted that the Invigilator generally has to sign when opening the question papers to attest that there was no tampering. In this case, despite the tampering, the invigilator signed off on them. The official submitted that this was because the centre superintendent and city coordinator were also part of the conspiracy.
Responding to the Court's query of they were arrested, the official submitted in affirmative and informed that he was part of this and took money. The official informed the court that apart from the Centre superintendent and coordinator, who were part of this, there was one more middleman who was a bridge between the gang and the students. It was further submitted that the conspiracy was hatched some months earlier because they had to identify one vulnerable centre who was ready to accept and give access.
At this outset, the CJI questioned, "Once this conspiracy was two or three months back, how is it that they confined the conspiracy to such a small group of people? Human greed otherwise is that you would want to maximise the profits you are going to make through the conspiracy. Why is it that they confined it to, say, 25 students?"
However, the SG claimed that the wrongdoers did not want the paper to go to others or reveal their identities to many people which would expose them to being arrested in advance. He submitted that this gang approached people one by one and those who fell into the trap, they gave post-dated cheques and some amount in advance. He further submitted that the post-dated cheques had been recovered and they could not be encashed.
Meanwhile, the official present in court explained that even the people who paid for getting the leaked/solved paper, had no confirmation that the leaked paper would be used until after they wrote the exam. So, only an advance was given and the rest of the money was to be paid later.
"So there is no evidence to indicate that conspiracy was wider in Jharkhand and Bihar?" the CJI asked.
Responding to this, the official answer in negative and submitted that what they found was that there were two locations in Hazaribag where this was shared after solving and one location in Patna where it was shared after solving. He submitted that within Patna, there was a sub-group.
At this outset, the CJI sought to know if any mobile had been seized. The official informed that the miscreants had destroyed some of the gadgets. He submitted that it needed to be examined foresically whether those mobiles were from the same gang. He mentioned that FSL report would indicate whether it went to Patna etc. or not. If the WhatsApp chats were not deleted, it could be known where all of it had gone.
"Now we know that there was a leak very much and that it originated in Hazaribagh and WhatsApp message was sent to Patna. What we are unsure is time of leak and is there any forensic data to show where all the messages were sent," observed the CJI.
In response to the CJI's query regarding the lock of the control room, the official informed that there were two doors. one was locked in front of everybody and the key was given to the Centre superintendent and the rear door was kept deliberately kept open. 7:53 am the main door was locked and at 8:02 am the person went inside from rear door. They left at 9:23 am, submitted the official.
"How do you rule out the possibility of the papers being sent to other locations also by WhatsApp messages? Solvers are in custody but how did they transmit.." questioned the CJI.
Responding to this, the CBI official referred to the tick marks on the hard copy, in the half-burnt copy. He submitted that the size of the tick mark was different than the girl candidate who appeared in Oasis school. So, this tick mark was on another hard copy, on a print out.
"The man enters that control room or hall.. He was inside the room for one hour 20 minutes. He must have taken time. Then he takes pictures on his mobile, forwards it to the solvers," Justice Pardiwala observed.
However, the CBI official clarified that not to the solvers, but one of his counterparts who was with the solvers. After solving the question papers it was again scanned.
"And this scanned copy has been sent to Patna (and one other centre in Hazaribagh) ... but how do we conclusively say that this scanned copy was not sent to anywhere else? We don't have forensic data ... else we would have seen the digital footprints." questioned the CJI.
At this outset, the SG informed that this is why they submitted the figures because the time available for them to impart whatever they stole was hardly 1.5 to 2 hours. Therefore, even the students who were caught, the beneficiaries, they also did not fare well.
"Earlier we thought 45 minutes given to solvers.. but the problem solvers probably got the question paper at 8.30 itself?" asked the CJI.
But the CBI official clarified that they got at around 9.24, as he transferred after he came out.
In this regard, the CJI observed that "His mobile is not available, neither is the conspirator's at Hazaribagh guest house." In response, the CBI official informed that they had arrested even the person who received the papers in Hazaribagh.
Therefore, the SG concluded that as per the report, no evidence was there to show that the solver paper were circulated in any form randomly except the 4 locations mentioned above there was no evidence and the total number of the candidates who were benefitted from this stone paper were around 155 people- around 30 in Patna and 125 in Hazaribagh.
The CJI observed that "If we are ordering a retest, students must know that they have to start preparing and if we do not then that they should also know. We cannot keep them hanging, hence we have to wrap the hearing today. It is not correct from institutional perspective also you see."
Relying on the report, the SG stated that the images of the two trunks at the control room of Oasis School at 7.53 AM on May 5th was different from the image of the trunks positioning when the officials had subsequently gone to open the trunks. Referring to this, he submitted that the theft happened between 8:02 to 9:23 AM.
He submitted that there were only two students who got 573 and 581 and this also could be because the students were intrinsically good and the rest of them got 111 etc.
When the CJI questioned about the Telegram thing, the SG submitted that the digital media could be used to wreck havoc in the country. He submitted that one of the officers also joined the group just to collect evidence. Taking note of the report, the CJI noted that the account was created on May 6th. The SG informed that it was uploaded on May 7 and manipulated to show as if it was before May 5th.
The SG referred to a previous judgment where the investigating agency had concluded that the paper was leaked and travelled through several States. He pointed out that in that judgment, the Court was dealing with an All India scam and on the other hand, the investigation in this case recorded that the issue was only at these four places. It is corroborated by the IIT report.
At this outset, Justice Manoj Misra questioned, "Is their forensic comparison between the paper posted on Telegram and the paper which was eventually given to the students ... Whether it was in same font.. structure etc...? If it's leaked out paper posted on Telegram, then matter ends.. if it's an information independent of the leak, then it is a serious thing.. Thus, there is a forensic investigation or not?"
The SG informed that there was no forensic report. Meanwhile, the Court observed that the Telegram question paper photo did not match the one in the case diary, not only regarding the font but in respect to numbering etc also.
Thereafter, the SG referred to the investigation, which suggested a localized identifiable irregularity and that is why this should not exercise judicial review.
Pleas Opposing Retest:
A lawyer representing the NEET candidates from tribal areas submitted that it would cause these students immense hardships to go through the entire process of appearing in the exam, which is an expensive affair as well.
Another counsel argued that using the paper leak as an excuse some of the students approached the High Courts on invalid grounds and accused NTA.
Submissions by Advocate Hooda:
Advocate Hooda pointed out that the gang head Sanjeev Mukhiya has still not been arrested and reportedly he is involved in at least five major paper leak cases in UP, Haryana, Rajasthan.
He also argued that the moment it is established that the leak took place, that the dissemination was through WhatsApp, and a gang operating in different States was involved, how could the Government say that the beneficiaries of the leak were confined only in Hazaribagh and Patna. According to him, this confidence emanates from only one fact that the accused in custody so far has said that the leak was confined.
Advocate Hooda also pointed out that as per CBI they could not recover mobile phones through which the dissemination of question papers took place. Therefore, it could not be said with confidence that this dissemination happened only in Patna and Hazaribagh and not beyond that.
Even if the leak happened on 5th May, there was sufficient time, he argued, adding that if the Court sustains the exam, it will have to record that tained could not be segregated from the untained.
Referring to the CBI officers' statement that "so far, it has not gone beyond Patna and Hazaribagh", Advocate Hooda pointed out that it is an evolving situation that came first time before the Court. He also demanded an affidavit from the authorities saying that henceforth there could be no investigation to see if it had gone beyond.
He questioned what would happen if the judgment came today and tomorrow Sanjeev Mukhiya got arrested along with the mobile which would show that he had sent for 200 people in Sikkim.
At this outset, the CJI observed "Just one aspect, if the Court cancel the exam today on the ... investigation is not complete, main conspirator is not arrested - there is a possibility that in some future, even a foreseeable future, it may not be confined to these two (locations).. but in a situation where 23 lakh students appeared and we are dealing with welfare students... how do we? Look at it this way. Let's put it both ways - today, you are right, we can't say that the leak - we can't enter a judicial finding that the leak is confined only to Patna and Hazaribagh for the reason that the investigation is ongoing. Even CBI can't say that. Today, it is confined to Hazaribagh and Patna... CBI investigation in some days may reveal a different (picture)... We, on the one hand, can't say the leak is confined to Hazaribagh and Patna. Equally, today we can't say with any degree of - even prima facie - ... that the leak has gone beyond Hazaribagh and Patna in such a widespread, systemic manner to completely affect the sanctity of the entirety of the exam. That also we cannot say."
"Would the court be justified in a situation like this to say that - not on the basis of material that we have today, but on the hypothesis that some material in the future may show that the leak has gone beyond Hazaribagh and Patna - so therefore today, we cancel the exam?" questioned the CJI.
Advocate Hooda argued that even if there were 1,000 beneficiaries, there had to be a retest since the integrity of the exam was comprised and it could not be concluded that everybody (tainted) had been identified from the untainted. Arguing that there was a systemic failure, Advocate Hooda submitted that if NEET was a patient, it was suffering from multi-organ failure and the patient had to go.
He also referred to a news item stating that a rickshaw was carrying the question papers. While the SG claimed that it was OMR sheets, referring to the newspaper reports, Hooda argued that OMR sheets and questions papers are in the same and never separated. He submitted that the report stated that instead of taking the question paper directly to CBI or Canara Bank, the private courier company took it to the Oasis school where the breach took place on May 3rd.
Submissions by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde:
Referring to the CBI's submission that the leak happened at 8:02 am and till 9:23 am, Advocate Hegde questioned would the parents pay 30 to 75 lakh in advance for this chance that the students would read the papers and memorise it within two hours. He argued that it was not possible.
He referred to Oasis school, where it happened, and relied on a video of the principal saying that when the earlier EOW asked how this had happened, their conclusion was that the leak had happened before the papers were sent to the banks. He pointed out that there was a video of a man when he was not arrested. Therefore, he argued that the leak probably happened on 3rd in Hazaribagh and it was caught in Patna.
Submissions by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara:
He pointed out that the only issue was that a leak had happened and therefore, there was no alternative than a retest. While it may be inconvenient, he argued that the only thing to be taught was how to reduce the inconvenience.
Further, he pointed out that the Government did not challenge the maintainability of these pleas, but allowed detailed arguments for days and days. He urged the Court to let the Government do its job. He submitted that the matter should have been relegated to the Government.
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.