Dismissing the plea, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan observed, "We don't approve this practice of students just coming into Supreme Court (with) Article 32 (petitions, saying) "declare this and that, this is discrepancy, this is error." Sorry sir."
The plea before the Supreme Court bench was filed by an aspirant who alleged discrepancies in the result, missing roll numbers. Filing the plea, the candidate prayed to the Court for the production of the answer sheet.
Also Read: Transparency or Formality? NEET PG 2025 answer key draws flak
Bar and Bench has reported that during the hearing of the case, the bench asked the petitioner's counsel, "Why do you want the entire result to be set at naught?"
In response, the petitioner's counsel highlighted discrepancies, missing roll numbers etc. and added that he was seeking a production of answer sheet.
When the Court sought to know how many students appeared in that exam, the petitioner's lawyer informed that the number was more than 5000.
"How many noticed these discrepancies?" questioned the bench.
In response, the petitioner's counsel informed, "I am for petitioner only. Number of petitions are pending."
"You are now on exam result," the judge observed.
Responding to this, the petitioner's lawyer urged the Court to direct the respondent to place the petitioner's question paper, my answer sheet, answers awarded.
"Anything else? We'll produce examiner also? The professors who were there in classroom also, with family?" said the judge. Finally, the bench dismissed the plea with costs of Rs 25,000.
When the petitioner pleaded to the court to see the answer sheets, the Court observed, "Well if some decision is pending, we declare the result to be in accordance with law. It will apply to you also."
It also disproved of the practice of students approaching the Supreme Court with Article 32 petitions praying to "declare this and that".
Eventually, the court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea and noted, "Plea is not pressed, as petitioner would like to avail appropriate remedy before the territorial High Court."
Also Read: NEET PG Transparency: Supreme Court seeks response from NBE, hearing postponed
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.