Individuality Of Experts Not Compromised Merely Because They Are Appointed By NTA: Delhi High Court Dismisses NEET Aspirant's Challenge

The Delhi High Court today dismissed the appeal preferred by a medical aspirant, challenging two questions in the Botany paper of the recently conducted NEET-UG examination.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Gedela said it cannot distrust the expert appointed by the National Testing Agency, merely because the body is a party to the litigation.

The aspirant, Nandita had appeared for NEET on May 25, 2024. She challenged question numbers 104 and 149 of R4 Test Booklet before the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System. Having received no response, she approached the single Judge, which dismissed her plea stating that NTA has had the issue examined by three subject experts. Hence, this appeal.

Nandita, appearing in person, argued that third opinion should have been taken of an expert, who is not a party to the proceedings. She submitted that since the NTA is a respondent to her challenge, the opinion of NTA's subject experts cannot be final.

Disagreeing, the bench orally observed,

"Just because he is hired (by NTA) doesn't mean his individuality is compromised. He is an expert...Just because the NTA consulted the experts, doesn't mean they are not independent."

The aspirant then relied on Supreme Court's decision in Vanshika Yadav v Union of India, whereby expert opinion was sought from IIT-Delhi. However, the High Court differentiated that case, stating that the question there was referred to the IIT since NTA was treating two answers as correct response to a single question, which is not the case here. It also pointed that Vanshika Yadav (supra) involved disputes by over 13,000 aspirants whereas here, "except you no one else is saying that the question is not correct."

The bench relied on Kanpur University v Sameer Gupta where the Supreme Court emphasized that there is always a presumption of correctness in favour of the answer key, unless it is demonstrably so wrong that no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.

High Court observed, "Jurisdiction of courts is circumscribed in such matters. The scope of judicial adjudication is very limited. NTA had both the issues examined by subject experts. This court can't sit as appellate authority on the opinion of the experts" and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Nandita v. NTA