NEET-UG 2024| Initial Statements Recorded By Bihar Police Indicate Paper Leak Happened Before May 4, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (July 22) verbally observed that the initial statements of the accused arrested by the Bihar Police in the NEET-UG paper leak matter suggest that the paper leak happened before May 4.

A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a batch of cases seeking to cancel the NEET-UG 2024 ( National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) held on May 5 for undergraduate medical admissions on the ground of paper leak and other malpractices.

Senior Advocate Narender Hooda appearing for the petitioners submitted that the paper leak happened before the day of the exam as opposed to the claim of the Union that the leak occurred on the morning of May 5.

On the previous hearing date, the Court had called for the records of the investigation carried out by the Bihar police before the matter was taken over by the CBI,

According to Hooda, Bihar police reports suggest that students received leaked papers on May 4. He argued that the leak likely happened on or before May 3rd, before the deposit of question papers to the custodian banks (SBI and Canara Bank). The first FIR initiated for a paper leak happened in Patna. The petitioner relied upon the Bihar Police's investigation report after the FIR. The CBI took over the investigation on June 25.

"Bihar police materials indicate that students were given leaked papers on 4th. The leak did not happen on the morning of May 5 as was suggested. The Leak happened prior to the deposit of the question papers with the respective banks. That is the 3rd of May or prior to that."

After perusing the records, CJI observed that the accused statements reveal that the students were made to memorise the answers the night before the exam (May 5).

"This indicates that students were being asked to memorize on the night of the 4th which means that the leak had happened prior to the 4th," CJI said.

The four main accused initially arrested by Patna Police were - Anurag Yadav (NEET-UG Candidate); Sikandar Prasad Yadvendu (Uncle of Anurag); Amit Anand (middle man) and Nitish Kumar (aided the leak).

However, on further perusal of the statements, the CJI noted that the subsequent statement of Amit Anand was at variance, the first statement said that the leak happened on the night of May 4, while the second statement says that the leaked papers were received on WhatsApp in the morning of May 5.

The CJI added that if one takes the initial possibility of the leak happening on the night of May 4, then the leak was committed not during the transportation of the question papers to the custodian banks and storing in the vaults of the bank's strong room.

"If the leak has taken place on the night of the (May) 4th, then obviously the leak did not take place at the process of transportation, and it took place prior."

"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," CJI added.

Hooda emphasized that this wasn't a small-scale incident involving a few students but rather the work of an organized gang with a history of such activities. He mentioned that key suspects- the gang members, including Sanjeev Mukhya, have not been arrested. He urged the Court to at least reconsider re-testing those 13 lakh candidates who qualified for the exam if the Court opines that a total 'Re-NEET' of 23 lakh candidates is not possible.

It may be recalled that the Union/NTA took the stand that the paper leak happened only at a centre in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) on the morning of the exam date. The leaked paper was then sent to some gang members in Patna as well.

On The Issue Of Distribution Of Papers Stored At Canara Bank

During the hearing, Hooda emphasized a specific incident at Hardayal School in Jhajjar. Although the question paper set from the SBI had to be distributed, the students were given papers stored in Canara bank. The students attended the wrong booklet for the full-time. He also submitted that the NTA also gave grace marks to the students of this centre on the ground of loss of time, although there was no such loss of time. Loss of time occurred only in those centres where the question papers from Canara bank were replaced midway with the correct papers (SBI set). However, in this centre, no replacement happened and the students attended the Canara bank set.

He also flagged that the centre had unusually high number of toppers (6 students got 720/720 and 2 got 719 and 718)

The court questioned why papers from Canara Bank were distributed when those from the State Bank of India (SBI) should have been used. NTA's counsel Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik explained that Jhajjar was a new exam centre, and the city coordinator may have missed important instructions.

NTA Counsel disclosed that over 3,000 candidates received the Canara Bank paper across eight centres. It assured the court that both sets of papers (SBI and Canara Bank) had the same difficulty level.

It was further stated that in some centres, the wrong booklets were withdrawn mid-exam and replaced with the correct ones from the SBI. Students affected by this were given grace marks to compensate for lost time.

No Answer Key Released For Canara Bank Papers Till Date; Only Half Of Candidates Appeared For Retest Out of 1563 Students Who Were Granted Grace Marks

Senior Counsel Hoodaasked how the NTA could have evaluated the Canara Bank papers when they had only declared the answer key for the SBI paper.

"Till date no key for Canara bank paper declared," Hooda remarked.

Hooda informed that out of the 1563 candidates who received grace marks for being affected by distributing the wrong papers from Canara Bank, only 863 appeared for a re-test. The SG informed the Court that these 1563 candidates were drawn from 8 centres.

Taking the example of a student from Hardyal School who took a retest, Hooda highlighted how before the retest, the student's rank was 68th but after the re-test, his/her rank plummeted to 58,000th.

Later, Hooda stated that the City Coordinator collected papers from both banks and distributed Canara Bank papers to three centres in Jhajjar. The mistake was caught and corrected at two centres, but one centre continued with the wrong paper. He also highlighted that on June 4th, only the SBI answer key was released and the authorities did not disclose at that time that grace marks had been awarded to some students.

Queries By The Bench

Pursuant to the above discussion, the bench posed 5 main questions to the Union and NTA : (1) At how many centres were Canara bank papers distributed; (2) Out of those centres, in how many centres, were the correct question booklets(SBI paper) replaced?; (3) At how many centres were the papers evaluated for Canara bank papers?; (4) Once the Canara bank papers were evaluated, how did the candidates fare?; (5) How does Canara Bank know the person is the right person to be given the papers? Who issues the letter of authorisation?

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Kaushik (for NTA) agreed to respond to these queries by tomorrow.

Petitioner Raises Concerns About Lack Of Adress Verification Of Candidates & Using Private Schools As Exams Centres

The petitioner emphasized how there was potential risk involved in engaging private schools as exam centres. Hooda submitted that in Sikar, Rajasthan 48 out of 49 centres are private schools, with only one Kendriya Vidyalaya. The petitioner argued that this setup could lead to potential malpractices, as the coordinators and invigilators are private individuals. Some centres don't even have basic infrastructure like boundary walls.

Another aspect pointed out was the absence of any address verification process by NTA of candidates choosing centres across the country. Hooda submitted that the current system allows students to choose any exam centre in the country without providing proof of residence. This loophole potentially enables candidates to select centres known for malpractices, regardless of their actual location. He cited instances where candidates residing in Karnataka or Odisha have chosen Godhra as their exam centre.

As per their system, if I am a resident of TN and I want a centre in Sikar, I can simply write the address of Sikar. People have travelled from Odisha and Karnataka to Godhra. One girl who got over 700 marks failed in Class 12. They do not authenticate addresses. Anyone can write any address and choose any centre

The CJI then asked the SG if, at the time of registration, the candidate is required to show any address proof while selecting the centre. The SG answered that he would address the issue after inquiring further.

Statistical Anomalies In Result Patterns From Sikar

The petitioner spotlighted the statistical data showing unusual patterns in Sikar's results. Notably, Sikar has an exceptionally high number of top-scoring students compared to other regions. Out of the 50 centres nationwide where students scored more than 650/ 720 marks, 38 are from Sikar alone. He stated that from the region, 8 scored above 700, 69 scored above 650, 115 scored above 600 and 241 scored above 550 marks.

The CJI weighed in to ask that even if it is assumed that malpractices took place in Sikar, would that be grounds to cancel exams in the entire country instead of cancelling them just for Sikar?

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde intervened to add that the number of high-scoring students from the area was higher than the national average, with one in four students scoring above 650 marks as opposed to the national average of 6 per 1000 students.

Hooda underlined the issue of 'system failure' for the unexplainable statistics from Sikar especially since the scorers had not taken coaching from Sirkar but appeared in the region's centres.

"This shows systemic failure. And these are not students from Sikar. They have not taken coaching in Sikar. There is a heavy tilt towards Sikar because there is a systemic malaise. We cannot separate from tainted from untainted."

The SG however countered this by pointing out that Sikar and Kota are the main coaching hubs where students go for preparing the exam. He added that perhaps the success rate for Sikar has gone down as compared to previous years.

On The Possibility Of OMR Sheets Tampering & 'Systemic Failure'

The CJI reiterated the main concern of the court- evidence demonstrating that the leak had spread nationwide, rather than being limited to specific locations like Hazaribag, Patna, and Bahadurgarh.

Hooda responded that even beyond the paper leak other aspects contributed to the present controversy, He pointed out vulnerabilities in the system, particularly in areas like Sikar and Mahendragarh, where OMR sheets could potentially be manipulated after the exam by private invigilators.

"In places like Sikar, and Mahendragarh, where the concentration is happening, the OMR sheets are being manipulated. The private invigilators have OMR sheets after 5.20. What prevents them from filling up the sheets and depositing it at City Centres after 3 hours?"

He also stated that in some centres where the papers were leaked through WhatsApp, there was no CCTV camera monitoring. He added that non-monitoring is admitted by NTA in is affidavit relating to Sawai Madhavpur instance.

Justice Pardiwala sought clarification on whether the petitioners' argument centred on systemic failures leading to the paper leak. Hooda clarified that this was not their primary contention.

The discussion then shifted to the extent to which the court could examine systemic failures beyond the paper leak issue.

The CJI acknowledged the possibility that systemic weaknesses could have allowed the leak to spread. However, he also noted that students often choose certain exam centres due to perceptions of lenient marking, which may not be sufficient grounds for cancelling the entire exam.

"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."

Important To Take Action Before The Cancer Spreads: Sr Advocate Hegde Stressed For Re-Test Of Qualified Candidates

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde appearing for one of the intervenors emphasized that NEET is not just a qualification for government seats in India but is also recognized by many foreign countries like Ukraine. He questioned whether the 13 lakh candidates who scored above the 164 cut-off mark were all judged fairly.

Just when cancer is suspected, chemotherapy is resorted to in the event of inconclusive results, Hedge stressed that decisive action is necessary considering that the leak was widespread and the tainted candidates cannot be separated from the untainted ones. He expressed worry over the number of potentially unqualified candidates entering the medical education system, noting the significant government investment (1 crore) in each medical student. The Counsel called it necessary to have a re-test of the 13 lakh qualified students.

During the arguments presented by other impleaders, one of the Counsels cited the decision of the Top Court in Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE by the bench of Justice Amitava Roy. In the said decision, the Court cancelled All India Pre-Medical 2015, for 6 lakh students after finding that 44 candidates were beneficiaries of unfair means.

The bench asked remaining counsels who argued for a complete re-test to email their written submissions in short. Those petitioners who were opposing the 'Re-NEET' briefly submitted that allowing a re-test would cause severe hardship to students who spent considerable time in preparations and would further delay the timeline for admissions.

The bench will resume its hearing tomorrow.

Also from today's hearing - NEET-UG 2024| Supreme Court Seeks IIT-Delhi Expert Opinion On Correct Answer Of 'Ambiguous' Question

Case Details: VANSHIKA YADAV Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 335/2024 And Other Connected Matters.