NEET 2024: Hold Retest for 13 Lakh Candidates who Scored Cut-off Marks, Petitioners Urge Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday i.e. on July 22nd, 2024 heard in detail about the pleas seeking a re-conduction of the National Eligibility-and-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 examination.
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.
However, the bench did not give any order on the issue. During the proceedings, a counsel appeared for a petitioner who secured 711 marks and challenged a question which had ambiguous options.
In this regard, the Apex Court bench directed the Director of IIT Delhi to constitute a team of three experts of the subject concerned and formulate the opinion on the correct option and remit the opinion to the Registrar by 12 noon tomorrow.
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.
NTA had been directed to declare the results separately city and centre-wise within 5 PM on July 19. The top court bench had expressed that it was important to ensure whether the paper leak was confined to the centres in Patna and Hazaribag or was more widespread. Further, the Supreme Court had sought to view the case diary of the Patna Police.
What Happened at Today's Hearing:
Advocate Hooda for the petitioners pointed out that NTA has already published the results but they have not given the All India Rank or the seriatum of the exam centres. He informed the Court that the agency has given centre-wise and city-wise results, withholding the All India Rank and serial number of the exam centres.
Meanwhile, CJI observed that the question paper was being ferried in an e-rickshaw without any doubt even though they claimed that the photograph was of OMR sheet. As per the CJI, the ferrying of paper in e-rickshaw was established. Thereafter, the CJI questioned what emerged from the centre-wise and city-wise data.
Responding to this, Advocate Hooda submitted that they had already submitted a note based on the data. He also submitted that they admitted paper leak and admitted that the dissemination happened on WhatsApp. Referring to the Bihar Police materials, he argued that the students were given leaked papers on the 4th and the leak did not happen on the morning of May 5 as was suggested.
Advocate Hooda further claimed that the leak happened before the deposit of the question papers with the respective banks i.e. on 3rd May or before that. "It is not some peon went to the paper room and gave it to some 5-10 students. It was handiwork of a gang who have done it in past too. Sanjeev Mukhya and all have not been arrested," he submitted, while referring to the statement of Anurag Yadav recorded by Bihar Police.
Further referring to the statements of Nitesh Kumar, Amit Anand and Sikander Prasad, Advocate Hooda argued that their 161 statements indicated that the leak was much prior to the examination.
Responding to these arguments, the Solicitor General submitted that Amit Anand was a middleman and he was collecting the students on the night of 4th so that he could get the papers on the 5th. He also claimed that Nitish Kumar was at the place where the papers were received on the 5th. However, Advocate Hooda for the petitioners claimed that the investigation was being botched up by the stand taken by the Government of India.
At this outset, the CJI took note of Amit Anand's statement that said that the students were gathered to memorize the answers on the night of 4th May, the day before the examination. However, the Solicitor General urged the Apex Court to read the report of the Economic Offences Unit (EOU) of the Bihar police for a complete picture.
"Statements are at variance. One statement says the leak happened on the 4th night, second statement says it was received on WhatsApp on the 5th morning. Amit Anand's statements are at variance," noted the CJI.
Taking note of the first statement, the CJI opined that it indicated that the leak had happened on the May 4th night. "If the leak has taken place on the night of the (May) 4th, then obviously the leak did not took place not at the process of transportation, and it took place prior, at the strong room vault," the CJI further observed at this outset.
The CJI further took note of the fact that all the problem solvers were students and none of them were professors. Responding to this, the Solicitor General submitted that for this work, students are better prepared as per his knowledge. The CJI noted that some of these students were from AIIMS Patna, some from Ranchi and from Rajasthan.
The Solicitor General further submitted that they bifurcated the papers and each had 25-30 questions, 25 questions, with computers and books could be easily solved. He further argued that after comparing the success rate of this particular centre and State with previous years' results, they found no abnormality.
When Senior Advocate Hegde urged the Court to read the statement of Anurag Yadav, who was the student and not a gang member, the CJI noted that Anurag Yadav said in his statement that he got it on the night of 4th May.
"Even so, we have to see if the leak is localised and confined only to Hazaribagh and Patna or whether it is widespread and systemic," observed the CJI, adding that "We don't have any material so far to show the leak was so widespread and spread across the country."
Advocate Hooda argued that according to NTA, the dispatch happened on 24th of April, and the paper reached on 3rd of May. Therefore, the paper remained in the hands of private players in between 24th April to 3rd May.
Referring to the example of Hardyal School of Jhajjar, Advocate Hooda submitted that the principal went to both banks to get the paper and the paper from the Canara bank was distributed. When it appeared that there were six students who got 720/720, two scored 719 and 718, it was asked how so many toppers were from one centre.
Back then, NTA had stated that they were given grace marks as there was a delay. However, the principal said that there was no delay and the Canara bank paper was distributed. But the SBI paper had to be distributed, argued Advocate Hooda.
Taking note of these submissions, the CJI questioned how someone from Jhajjar went to the Canara bank to collect the papers. Responding to this, the Solicitor General submitted that it might be a mistake.
The CJI further questioned NTA what happened exactly at the centre in Jhajjar. In response, the NTA counsel submitted that Jhajjar was a new centre and perhaps the city coordinator might not had seen the message and due to this, the question paper was picked up from both the places.
"Are the banks not informed that you don't have to release? Canara bank wasn't told they are not to release?" observed the CJI.
Responding to this, the Solicitor General informed that the message goes to the bank. When the CJI questioned how the centre-in-charge at Jhajjar went to Canara bank, NTA submitted that it was a mistake, both on the part of the coordinator and the bank. The agency further informed the Supreme Court that there were a little more than 3000 candidates who got the Canara bank paper.
However, the CJI further sought to know at how many centres this happened. The counsel for NTA informed the Court that it would submit the correct number.
The Chief Justice questioned why the students were given grace marks. The Solicitor General informed that it was not a correct decision. He also pointed out that there was a decision stating that in case of time problems, students be given grace marks. However, later this decision was recalled and re-test was done.
Meanwhile, Advocate Hooda pointed out that only one answer key for the SBI paper was declared on 4th June. So, he questioned how they evaluated the Canara bank papers.
NTA submitted that the grace marks were given only to the students whose paper (Canara Bank) was withdrawn midway and the SBI paper was given. The agency further informed that 3300 completed the exam with the wrong paper i.e. was from the Canara Bank.
When Advocate Hooda questioned how the Canara bank papers were evaluated since they had released only one key for the SBI paper, the CJI noted that they must had a key for Canara Bank. However, Advocate Hooda pointed out that till date no key for the Canara bank paper was declared.
"Okay, assuming that wrong things happened, show us the data, how it was widespread," observed the CJI.
Advocate Hooda also pointed out that only 863 out of 1563 candidates appeared for the re-examination. The CJI sought to know these 1563 candidates were from how many centres. The Solicitor General informed the bench that these students were from 8 centres. Advocate Hooda claimed that all of this was being done behind the curtains and nothing was disclosed.
At this outset, the CJI questioned the Solicitor General and NTA about how many centres distributed the Canara bank papers, out of those centres, in how many centres, the correct question booklets from SBI replaced the Canara Bank papers. The bench also asked how many centres altogether were the papers evaluated for Canara bank papers and once the Canara Bank papers were evaluated, how did the candidates fare.
Thereafter the CJI asked who issued the letter of authorisation to the papers who collected the papers from Canara bank. SG informed that the authorisation is given by the Director General of NTA to the City Coordinators.
"What does the person take to the Bank? He has authorisations both for SBI and Canara Bank or only one?" questioned the CJI.
When the CJI asked if the authorisation is given for both the banks, the CG informed that it is for both the banks and the City Coordinator is told in the morning about which bank to approach.
"Did the city coordinator in Jhajjar go to Canara bank and distributed to all centres or only some?" asked the CJI. Responding to this, Advocate Hooda submitted that he collected from both banks.
"How did that happen? And he distributed in all centres the Can bank paper?" further questioned CJI Chandrachud.
NTA submitted at this outset that he distributed the Canara bank papers to three centres in Jhajjar and from two it was withdrawn when he realised the mistake and at the other centre, it continued.
Advocate Hooda further submitted that there was another blunder in the case of Hardayal school, where the students were given grace marks and 6 out of them got full marks. He argued that if Canara bank paper was attempted, where was the question of giving grace marks.
Responding to this, the SG submitted that it was mistake which was corrected later. He further argued that wherever the wrong paper was initially given, it was taken back and the new paper was given consequently and this resulted in cutting time and therefore grace marks were given.
"Grace marks were given to those students who were given wrong booklet which was withdrawn midway," confirmed the CJI and the SG responded by agreeing to the statement.
Meanwhile, referring to the NTA's statement before the Court, Advocate argued that it showed that the grace marks were given to Hardyal School students too.
CJi asked NTA, "Hardayal School students wrote only Canara Bank paper. Were they also given grace marks?"
When NTA counsel submitted that he would take instructions, Advocate Hooda submitted that he would take instructions. Thereafter Advocate Hooda submitted by saying that it was a "systemic failure".
The counsel for NTA submitted that in Hardayal school, grace marks were given. "In Hardayal school, all students wrote Canara bank paper. Why were they given grace marks," questioned the CJI.
At this outset, the SG pointed out that the counsel for the petitioners was arguing that the entire country's exam was being vitiated and that giving some examples of some mistakes might not assist him. However, Advocate Hooda argued that there was a "systematic failure".
Referring to Jhajjar, Advocate Hooda pointed out that initially, the authorities had argued that the Canara bank paper was given and evaluated and now they were saying that no grace marks were given and extra time were given. He questioned who took this decision.
He pointed out that in Hardayal school, the student who got 719 marks secured 68 rank and after re-test, the rank became 58,000. Now, the authorities were claiming that they did not know whether Canara paper or SBI paper was given, argued Hooda, pointing out that on 4th June, only SBI key was given and at that time they had not disclosed that grace marks were given.
Advocate Hooda also referred to Sikar where there were 49 centres and out of them one was Kendriya Vidyalaya and the rest were private schools. He pointed out that all their coordinators and invigilators were private individuals and also argued that they had shown photos of a school in a village where the exam was being conducted and it did not even have a boundary wall.
He also questioned about the time when OMR sheet had to be sealed, arguing that it kept lying in the Centre. Submitting that there was no specific procedure in this regard, mentioned by NTA, he contended that if the papers were collected at 5.20, they had to be sealed at 5.30.
"How soon after the exam concludes the sealing takes places?" asked the CJI.
Submitting that this was not found in the entire SOP, Advocate Hooda further informed that after analysing the data, they took note of certain centres which were doing exceedingly well. He pointed out that both Kota and Sikar have an equal number of students appearing, and if top centres across the country were counted where students secured more than 650 marks, 38 out of 50 centres were only from Sikar.
Kota and Sikar have both equal students appearing. 38 out of 50 centres which have students with more than 650 marks are from Sikar. 6 are from Mahendragarh, Rewari, noted the CJI.
Advocate Hooda also highlighted the difference in the data declared on the 4th of June and the 20th of July, while pointing out that in Bihar, there was a difference of 13,000 in the number of appearances. So many numbers were reduced. He further argued that as per their system, anyone from anywhere can choose any centre based on the address they put. He highlighted that people travelled from Odisha and Karnataka to Godhra.
"A student can choose any centre in any part of the country and you don't have to submit any documents?" questioned the CJI and Advocate Hooda submitted that no documents were needed.
"Does the student at any time in the registration process show any document that he is a resident of the address?" CJI asked the Solicitor General, who submitted that he would address the issue after inquiring.
Advocate Hooda also referred to a centre in Rajkot, where 12 students scored above 100 and 115 students scored above 650 marks. In case of Sikar, he submitted that 8 students scored above 700 and 69 scored above 650, 115 students above 600 and 241 above 550.
He argued that the city coordinators were owners of private schools and the invigilators were the employees of such schools. Therefore the possibility could not be ruled out that those teachers were in league with the coaching centres in Kota and Sikar.
"Assuming that it is so, can that be one ground to cancel the exam for the entire country or to cancel the exam only for Sikar?" observed the CJI.
At this outset, Advocate Sanjay Hegde submitted that 6 people per 1000 people on average scored more than 650 marks on a national level and that should be the reference point and in Sikar, one in 4 students secured that marks.
Referring to these arguments, Advocate Hooda claimed that there was a "systemic failure", adding that those students were not students from Sikar and they had not taken coaching in Sikar. He pointed out that one girl from Gujarat went all the way to Belagavi in Karnataka and got 705 marks, but she failed in 12th. CJI, thereafter, questioned if there was any data on people from Belagavi getting unusually high marks.
Advocate Hooda argued that there was a heavy tilt towards Sikar because there was a systemic malaise and the tainted could not be separated from the untainted. He submitted that in Sawai Madahvpur, it was the case that the wrong paper was distributed and the paper started at 2 PM and they got to know at 4.30 PM from social media.
When the CJI questioned how would he establish that the paper leak was spread all over the country, Advocate Hooda submitted that besides the paper leak, his main argument was that the system was so fragile that it was consistently being compromised.
"Are you challenging this NEET or are you appearing for people who don't want NEET at all?" the CJI questioned Advocate Hooda.
"If there are loopholes, we will address that.. Basically you have concentrated on Hazaribag, Patna...some lapses in Bahadurgarh.....where do you demonstrate a systemic failure?" the Chief Justice further noted.
Responding to this, Advocate Hooda submitted that in places like Sikar, Mahendragarh, where the concentration was happening, the OMR sheets were being manipulated and the private invigilators had the OMRs after 5.20. He questioned what prevented them from filling up the sheets and depositing them at the City Centres after 3 hours. He also questioned why a candidate from Gujarat who failed in 12 and scored high in NEET went all the way to a centre in Belagavi.
When the CJI asked about the success rate in that centre, the SG submitted that the success rate was 6%. The SG further submitted that from their analysis, for 2024, the success rate for Sikar went down.
At this outset, Justice Pardiwala observed, "Mr. Hooda, there are two ways of looking. Yes, there was a paper leak. Is it your argument that systemic failure led to paper leak?"
When Advocate Hooda answered in negative, the Judge noted, "At this point digressing from the issue of paper leak, to what extent we can go into the issue of systemic failure?"
"Let us examine in this manner, whether the students who performed well in Sikar, was it due to the paper leak?" Justice Pardiwala further observed.
Responding to this, Advocate Hooda submitted that regarding paper leak, there was direct evidence before the Court and further submitted that since the petitioners were not privt to the investigation, they could only fall back on the circumstantial evidence.
"So the alternate hypotheses that because of the systemic failures it can possible spread.." observed the CJI.
"Also Mr.Hooda, in many professional exams, students do choose some centres. Because there is a perception that the marking is lenient in those centres. That may not be a ground to cancel the entire exam," the CJI further noted, adding that they would ask the SG to tighten up the systemic flaws.
"You have pointed out issues like no clarity on when the OMR sheets are sealed, time gap between the exam and the deposit of OMR sheets, lack of address verification.." the Chief Justice observed.
After the lunch break, Advocate Hooda summarised his arguments by saying that Sanjeev Mukhya, a gangster is yet to be arrested. He further pointed out that the solvers were taken from Rajasthan and the Dissemination was through WhatsApp. So, it is not possible that the leak is confined to Patna. Referring to the CBI's argument that the leak happened on 5th May, he submitted that if the paper was available on 4th, the leak happened before 4th or even 3rd. Finally, he suggested holding a retest for at least for those who qualified in the exam held on 5th May, 2024 i.e. around 13 lakh candidates.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Hegde appearing for the petitioners also argued that the argument that the leak happened on 5th May could not be accepted. Referring to the investigation reports saying that some of the messages went to about 100 people, he argued that the leak happened at least on the night of 4th May or before that.
He further pointed out that the CBI investigation was not only confined to Patna but was covering multiple States. Advocate Hegde further submitted that the investigator did not come to any conclusion that it was a localised leak. He further submitted that NEET is not only used for government seats but it is also accepted in several foreign countries. So, referring to the 13 lakh candidates who obtained the 164 cut-off or more, he questioned whether all of them had been judged with a fair standard.
"Can we say everybody got marks which they were fairly entitled to? A competitive exam turning out 61 toppers cannot be trusted," he further submitted.
At this outset, the CJI pointed out that out of these 61 students, 44 got grace marks. In response to this, Advocate Hegde pointed out that it was for two options for one question and pointed out that those 44 students got marks for getting 179 questions right.
He further contended that if the syllabus had been easy, then rising tide raised all boats together. Referring to the fact that in the zone above 650, there were more than 50,000 students, he referred to it as a huge red flag.
Relying on a medical analogy, Advocate Hegde pointed out that when a doctor suspects cancer and the tests are inconclusive, the best thing to do is go for chemotherapy because one cannot risk the cancer cells growing.
"Your lordships on this date do not know how many got into the system. Each govt seat is govt spending a crore per student per year," submitted Hegde.
Advocate Hegde, thereafter, referred to the NTA's submissions before the Supreme Court and submitted that had NTA been a serious examination agency, it would have been most concerned about the integrity of the exam. But on 5th itself when it was told that the paper was leaked, supposing that NTA had taken a decision to scrap, would the Court have found an outrageous defiance of logic in that situation?
NTA continued to deny the fact that there was a leak, it did not cooperate with Bihar Police. Even though EOU wrote to the NTA, they did not respond immediately, submitted Hegde, adding that it was only after questions were being asked, that the NTA responded. It was only after the Court started asking questions that NTA started giving data, accepted that grace marks were given and held a retest. He pointed out that it was only on June 22 that changes were made in the personnel and CBI was put in the charge of investigation.
He argued that what came out was that there was an organized gang, with a prior history of leaking papers. It was their business model, submitted Hegde, adding that the leaked paper was a time-limited commodity. Everybody to whom the leaked paper went would try to maximise the profits. He further argued that the students could not be told that it was a fair exam and submitted that if these results were upheld, those post-dated cheques could still be encashed. Somebody who got 720 ended up with 640 in the re-test. With these submissions, he requested for a re-test for all those who qualified in the exam.
Advocate Nedumpara, appearing for the petitioners, also urged the Court to treat the May 5th exam as a preliminary exam and conduct a main exam. He argued that re-test was a question of common sense and prudence. Referring to the National Testing Agency's chart, he argued that the data was manifestly incorrect and the bell chart was a fraud.
As per Advocate Nedumpara, the leak industry was worth 2500 crore. He pointed out that 50,000 government medical seats are there and for the private medical colleges, the capitation fee could be anything between 50 lakh to 1 crore. He stressed the fact that the leak had been happening for many years and submitted that it happened in 2013, 2014 and 2016.
He also relied on the intervention application filed by the NEET UG 2024 candidates who scored more than 650 marks and also demanded a retest, considering the issue of paper leak.
One of the counsels appearing for the petitioners relied on the 2015 judgment in the case of "Tanvi Sarwal", in which the All India Pre-Medical 2015 examination was cancelled after finding out that 44 candidates were beneficiaries of unfair means.
Quoting from the concerned Judgement, the counsel submitted that "Even if, one undeserving candidate, a beneficiary of such illegal machination, though undetected is retained in the process it would be in denial of, the claim of more deserving candidates."
Meanwhile, another counsel opposed the NTA's decision of holding retest for 1563 candidates and questioned how did the NTA come up with the figure of 1563 candidates on June 4 when on May 5th, they talked about only once centre in Sawai Madhavpur.
He also objected to NTA opening a 24-hour window on April 9th allowing 24,000 students to additionally register for NEET. He submitted that the candidates who were not vigilant in filling the forms in time shouldn't be given additional opportunities.
During the proceedings, counsel appeared for a petitioner who secured 711 marks and challenged a question which had ambiguous options. The Counsel submitted that the petitioner chose not to attempt the question and NTA later gave full marks to candidates who answered either of the options. She further submitted that had NTA refused to give marks, the petitioner would have been in the top.
Some of the counsels argued that there should be no re-neet as it would cause candidates severe hardships and take them back to the entire timeline of registration, appearing in the exam, publication of results, etc.
Another counsel raised the issue that the students in some centres in Meghalaya were not given grace marks or given an option for a re-test even though they had suffered the loss of time. In this regard, the Supreme Court bench asked the Solicitor General to take instructions.
Meanwhile, Sr. Adv Mukta Gupta submitted the grievance of a petitioner, who was suffering from hyper-sweating problem and was not allowed to take a handkerchief. As per the counsel, because of the excessive sweating, the candidate could not properly attend the exam and sought a re-test. The CJI asked the remaining lawyers, who were arguing for a re-test, to send their written submissions by email.
