NEET-PG 2024 Candidate Urges Supreme Court To Direct NBE To Publish Answer Keys, OMR Sheets & Allow Re-Evaluation Option
A doctor appearing for admission to the post-graduate medical courses through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) has approached the Supreme Court challenging the refusal of the National Board of Examination (NBE) to provide access to the question paper, answer key and the answer papers of the NEET-PG examination.The petitioner also sought to direct the NBE to allow the...
A doctor appearing for admission to the post-graduate medical courses through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) has approached the Supreme Court challenging the refusal of the National Board of Examination (NBE) to provide access to the question paper, answer key and the answer papers of the NEET-PG examination.
The petitioner also sought to direct the NBE to allow the candidates to apply for re-evaluation of the scores.
On June 21, a vacation bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti issued notice to the NBE on the petition. The matter will be next listed on July 8 and the NBE will be at liberty to file a counter-affidavit in the meantime.
The petitioner submitted that access to answer keys is given in all major exams such as IIT-JEE, CMAT, CLAT, and various judicial services exams. Even for the NEET-UG exam conducted by the National Testing Agency, the candidates are given answer keys. However, for NEET-PG, the NBE does not provide answer keys. Even the requests for the answer sheets under the Right to Information Act 2005 is not accepted by the NBE, the petitioner stated.
The petitioner argued that the stand of the NBE is contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in CBSE And Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay And Ors(2011) which held that "answer sheets" are information under the Right to Information Act 2005, which a candidate has the right to access. Since NBE is not exempted from the RTI Act as per Section 24, it cannot deny access to answer sheets, the petitioner contended.
Clauses 9.7 and 10.4 of the NEET-PG Information Bulletin state that "NBE shall not entertain any request for sharing any content of the examination including answer keys/answer sheets" and "There shall be NO re-evaluation or rechecking or retotalling of responses marked by the candidates. Requests/Queries for re-evaluation/re-totalling shall not be entertained".
It may be noted that on June 11, the Supreme Court dismissed as "infructuous" the petitions filed seeking answer sheets, answer keys and re-evaluation in respect to the 2021 and 2022 NEET-PG exams. However, the Court granted liberty to file fresh petition if any grievance was subsisting with respect to NEET-PG 2024.
Stating the very same prospectus is applicable for the NEET-PG 2024 exam as well, the petitioner challenged the present petition challenging the above-said clauses as unconstitutional.
The following are the reliefs sought :
(i) Direct NBE to make provision for releasing the question paper and answer key of the candidates for NEET-PG candidates;
(ii) Direct NBE to allow the NEET-PG candidates the option of revaluation/rechecking in case of discrepancy in their scores
(iii) Declare the Clause 9.7 and 10.4 of the NEET-PG Information Bulletin, 2024 which is same for every year as unconstitutional;
(iv) Direct NBE to upload individual OMR answer sheet in login account along with the question paper and the corresponding answer key, immediately after the examination.
(v). Direct NBE to provide the answer key and question paper to the candidates for NEET-PG, upon them filing a RTI application.
(vi) Allow the candidates with an option to challenge the answer key in case of dispute questions;
It may be noted that on June 22, the Centre declared that the NEET-PG 2024 exam scheduled on June 23 has been postponed, taking into consideration the allegations regarding the integrity of the recently conducted competitive exams and to undertake a "thorough assessment of the robustness of the examination process."
The petitioner is represented by Charu Mathur, Advocate-on-Record and Avani Bansal, Advocate.
Case : Sukanya vs. National Board of Examination and others | WP(c) 385/2024