Summary
Giving reasons for its order of 23 July 2024, the Supreme Court declined to cancel NEET (UG) 2024 despite the admitted paper leak at Hazaribagh and Patna. An examination may be cancelled only where its sanctity is compromised at a systemic level and tainted candidates cannot be separated from untainted ones, and on the material then on record, including city- and centre-wise data compared with earlier years, the leak was localised and its beneficiaries identifiable. The Court directed that only one option of a disputed physics question be treated as correct, rejected the bias objection to the IIT Madras data report, criticised the NTA's lapses, and expanded the remit of the Union Government's expert committee with deadlines.
Issues
- Whether NTA could treat two options as correct for a question that had only one correct answer.
- Whether the data analysis by the Director of IIT Madras was vitiated by a conflict of interest because he was an ex officio member of NTA's General Body.
- Whether the sanctity of NEET (UG) 2024 was compromised at a systemic level so as to warrant cancellation and a re-test.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe writ petitions seeking cancellation of NEET (UG) 2024, a re-test and reforms were decided under Article 32; individual grievances not bearing on the issues decided were left to the High Courts under Article 226. (¶¶ 1, 7, 109)
- Chapter 3, Clause 3.2(vi), NTA Information Bulletin, NEET (UG) 2024Awards four marks to all candidates where no option is correct or a question is wrong or dropped; it did not apply because the question was valid and had exactly one correct answer. (¶¶ 47, 52)
Held
- Accepting the opinion of an IIT Delhi expert committee, the Court held that option (4) was the only correct answer to the disputed question; options (2) and (4) were mutually exclusive. The question was not wrong and did not have two correct answers, the discrepancy arising only from an outdated textbook edition, so NTA's award of marks for both options was unjustified, and marks and ranks had to be recomputed. (¶¶ 47, 51, 52, 53)
- The IIT Madras report was not vitiated by bias. Its Director was only an ex officio member of the General Body, which exercises general oversight while the Managing Committee runs day-to-day affairs, and he had not personally attended its recent meetings. The Court in any event examined the data independently. (¶¶ 57, 58, 59, 60)
- Cancellation of an examination is justified only where its sanctity is compromised at a systemic level and it is not possible to separate tainted from untainted candidates. The test ensures that a fresh examination is a proportionate response, and courts must take a holistic view. (¶¶ 61, 62, 63, 65, 66)
- Allegations of systemic malpractice must be substantiated by material on record, including investigation reports. The standard is not unduly strict: the material need not point only to systemic malpractice, but it must show a real possibility of systemic malaise. Data analysis of results is an accepted tool for this purpose. (¶¶ 67, 69, 72)
- On the record then available, the success rates at Hazaribagh, Patna and Godhra were not abnormal compared with 2022 and 2023, and the reopened registration window and changes of exam city showed no abnormal success. The Telegram video had been doctored and posted after the exam, and there was no material showing wide dissemination through social media or sophisticated electronic means. The leak was confined to isolated incidents, and its beneficiaries, about 155 students per the CBI, could be identified, so no re-test could be directed. (¶¶ 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84)
- A re-test would also be disproportionate, disrupting the academic schedule, affecting the future availability of doctors and disadvantaging candidates from marginalised backgrounds. Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar were distinguished, as there the malpractice was organised and widespread and the beneficiaries could not be segregated. (¶¶ 85, 89, 94)
- NTA's conduct gave cause for serious concern: a strongroom accessed through a rear door, papers moved by e-rickshaw and private couriers, no deadline for sealing OMR sheets, weak oversight of invigilators, wrong question papers distributed at twelve centres without custodian banks being told which set to release, a perfect-score count that fell from sixty-seven to seventeen only after external intervention, and flip-flops on compensatory marks. NTA must address these issues. (¶¶ 41, 42, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102)
- The ruling makes no finding of fact for criminal proceedings and does not shield anyone. Every candidate found, now or later, to have benefited from malpractice must face stringent action, and no such candidate acquires a vested right in admission notwithstanding completion of counselling. (¶¶ 21, 111)
Result
Petitions disposed of; no re-test ordered; NTA directed to treat only option (4) as correct and revise marks and ranks; the Radhakrishnan committee's remit expanded (examination security, SOPs, data security, stakeholder communication, training and support), with its report due by 30 September 2024, a Ministry of Education decision within one month and compliance reported within two weeks thereafter; transfer petitions allowed; individual grievances left to the High Courts; matter to be listed to verify compliance.