NEET 2024: SC Asks IIT Delhi to Form Panel, Give Expert Opinion on Physics Question Having 'Ambiguous' Options
New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has sought an expert opinion from an expert panel of IIT Delhi on a physics question in the National Eligibility-and-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) exam having 'ambiguous' options.
A petitioner, who secured 711 marks, challenged the National Testing Agency's decision to grant full marks for the question, which she did not attempt the said question due to negative marking.
"As indicated in the question as framed of which students had to select one option as their answer. In order to resolve the issue as regards the correct answer, we are of the considered view that an expert opinion should be sought from IIT Delhi. We request the Director of IIT Delhi to constitute a team of three experts of the subject concerned. The expert team constituted by the Director is requested to formulate the opinion on the correct option and remit the opinion to the Registrar by 12 noon tomorrow. Registrar General is requested to communicate the order to the IIT Delhi Director so that expeditious steps for the preparation of the opinion can be taken," ordered the Apex Court bench.
NEET-related pleas including those seeking a re-test and those opposing the re-test were scheduled for hearing on Monday i.e. July 22, 2024. During the hearing of these cases, a counsel appeared for a petitioner who secured 711 marks and challenged a question having ambiguous options.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner chose not to attempt the question for negative marking. However, NTA gave full marks to all the candidates who answered either of the options. As per the counsel, had the NTA refused to give marks, the petitioner would have been in the top.
She submitted that NTA said that in case of two correct options, attempt any. But the petitioner could not determine that there were two correct answers at the time of the exam. It was submitted that it could not be assumed that there were two correct answers and marks would be awarded for both.
The petitioner's counsel further submitted that the student decided not to attempt because of negative marking. She further submitted that the petitioner did exceptionally well except for this one question and ranked 311. Therefore, if NTA granted the petitioner four marks, the rank would move up. Alternatively, the counsel suggested that the question be deleted and the marks were counted with 716 as the total marks.
In support of her argument, the counsel relied on a judgment in the case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, which also considered a case concerning medical exam. It was held in that case that if a question was found to be ambiguous, it should be deleted. The counsel submitted that 44 students scored full marks in the NEET UG 2024 exam because they were given marks for the ambiguous question.
Taking note of these arguments the CJI told the Solicitor General that this was a powerful argument. "The instructions are that go by the latest NCERT edition. Option 4 is the correct answer as per the latest NCERT edition. Then those who answered option 2 cannot be given full marks. There, I think they may have a point," observed the CJI.
"Possible answer to the argument that if you don't know the answer, then the assumption is that you don't know the answer," the CJI further noted, adding that the alternate argument was not giving any marks but giving full marks only to those who selected option 4.
The CJI observed that the counsel's argument was that by giving marks to those who answered even option 2, they were increasing the number of toppers.
At this outset, the CJI questioned, "Why did NTA eventually come to the conclusion to give marks to both options?"
Responding to this, the Solicitor General submitted that this was done because both were possible answers. However, opposing this, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not possible.
She referred to Statement 2 stating "Atoms of each elements are stable and emit their characteristic spectrum." As per NCERT, Atpms of each elements, but new NCERT said that atoms of "most" elements. Referring to this, the counsel argued that both options could not be correct.
When the CJI sought to know which NCERT editions are the students expected to follow, the SG submitted that the new edition should be followed.
"By giving marks to option 2, you are going against your own rule that old edition can't be followed," observed the CJI.
Responding to this, the SG informed that 4,20,774 students attempted option 2 (old NCERT edition answer) and 9,28.379 attempted option 4 (new NCERT edition answer).
"So the 4.20 lakh students will lose the 4 marks and also get one negative marks if option 2 is treated as wrong," observed the CJI.
The Solicitor General informed the Apex Court bench that they received representations from many poor students stating that they used their elder siblings' NCERT books to study.
Meanwhile, a counsel pointed out that older version was not available. She submitted that since 2019, the new version was there. Therefore, if the students were using older version of siblings, it should be considered when those siblings passed out.
"Suppose they accept their argument, none of the students who opted option 2 are here. All those 44 students who got 720, they will come to 715," observed the CJI.
"You could not have treated both as correct answers. You have to choose either option. Both can't co-exist," the CJI further clarified.
Meanwhile, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisional answer key gave the correct answer. However, it was changed later and they decided giving marks for option 2 as well.
"What is worrying us is that, over 4 lakh students have got the benefit of what you have done," noted the CJI, adding that in respect to the question 19, an expert body could be appointed and they could be asked to give the correct option, possibly by tomorrow.
Accordingly, in order to resolve the issue regarding the correct answer, the bench sought an expert opinion from IIT Delhi. It directed the Director of IIT Delhi to set up a team of three experts of the subject concerned.
"The expert team constituted by the Director is requested to formulate the opinion on the correct option and remit the opinion to the Registrar by 12 noon tomorrow. Registrar General is requested to communicate the order to the IIT Delhi Director so that expeditious steps for the preparation of the opinion can be taken," ordered the bench.
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd