NTA Should Avoid Flip-Flops Which Happened In NEET-UG Case : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 2) criticised the National Testing Agency (NTA) for the "flip flops" it made in relation to the conduct of the NEET-UG 2024 exam.

The Court was pronouncing the detailed judgment giving the reasons for its July 23 order which refused to cancel the NEET-UG exam held on May 5 over paper leak and malpractices.

While holding that there was no material to show that the leak was widespread affecting the sanctity of the entire exam, the Court highlighted the lapses made by the NTA.

After the oral pronouncement, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, "We have said that the NTA must now avoid the flip flops which it has made in this case. These flip-flops in the NTA does not serve the interest of the students."

Court flags Security lapses

The Court observed in the judgment that he paper was leaked in Patna and Hazaribagh. In one of the centres, the rear door of the strongroom was opened and unauthorised persons were permitted to access the question papers. This indicates that there is a serious lapse in security and that security measures which are stringent and effective must be implemented by NTA.

Questions papers were sometimes transported in e-rickshaws and services of private courier companies were used.

No specific time has been mentioned to seal the OMR sheets after the exam. This can mean that dishonest people can tamper with the sheets after the candidates have exited the hall.

Another point of concern is that NTA relies on persons over whom it does not exercise direct oversight to be the invigilators for the exam.

In twelve centres, the wrong question paper from Canara Bank were distributed.

Grace mark issue

The Court also flagged the NTA's decision to award grace marks to 1563 students to compensate for the loss of time they suffered for being given the wrong question paper. However, this decision was later retracted and those students were made to appear for a re-test.

The Court also pointed out the NTA's decision to award grace marks to students who attempted a second option for an ambiguous question. Later, the expert panel constituted by the IIT-Delhi opined that the question has only one correct answer, following which the Court directed the NTA to revise the results accordingly. Because of the NTA's decision to treat two answers as the correct answer, 44 students got the full 720 marks, CJI pointed out.

"A body such as NTA which is entrusted with immense responsibility in relation to highly important competitive exams cannot afford to misstep, take an incorrect decision, and amend it at a later stage. All decisions must be well-considered, with due regard to the importance of the decision. Flip- flops are an anathema to fairness.

NTA is directed to ensure that all the concerns highlighted by the Court in this judgment are addressed. The committee constituted by the Union Government is also requested to keep these issues in mind while formulating its recommendations," the Court observed in the judgment.

In the judgment, the Court has given additional directions to the expert committee, which was constituted by the Union Government on June 22 to examine measures to make the exam process more robust.

The Court has asked the expert-committee to evaluate mechanism to evaluate the security mechanism ensure rigorous checks in the exam process.

The committee has been asked to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) regarding the timeline for registration, change of exam centres, sealing and storage of OMR sheets. The other suggestions are :

• review the process by which exam centres are allotted to candidates
  
• consider the viability of comprehensive CCTV monitoring at all exam centres.
  
• review and suggest measures for enhancing the process for printing, transportation of papers.
  
• explore the viability of using closed vehicles with real-time locks rather than open e-rickshaws for transportation.
  
• enhance identity checks at various stages, technological innovations to check impersonation and take into account privacy law.

The Court has asked the committee to prepare a report by September 30, 2024. Thereafter, the Ministry of Education shall formulate the program to be implemented in a month and then inform the court of the development after two weeks of the said decision.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgement in a batch of petitions seeking to cancel the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test(NEET) held for Under Graduate (UG) medical admissions on May 5, 2024 for paper leak and malpractices. The results were declared on June 4.

The Court stated that the leak was localised in the centres of Hazaribagh and Patna. The Court also stated that ordering a re-examination will lead to serious consequences affecting over 23 lakh students and will lead to disruption of the academic schedule, causing a cascading effect in the coming years.

Key Conclusions Of The Court In July 23 Order

The fact that a leak of the NEET-UG 2024 paper took place at Hazaribagh and at Patna is not in dispute.

Following the transfer of the investigation, CBI has filed its status reports. The disclosures by the CBI indicate that the investigation is continuing, however, it has indicated that the present material showed that about 155 students drawn from exam centres at Hazaribagh and Patna appeared to be beneficiaries of the scam.

Since the investigation by the CBI has not attained finality, the Court required the Union Govt to indicate if any abnormalities could be inferred from the results in 571 cities. The Union has produced a report of IIT Madras. The Court has independently scrutinized the data submitted by the Union.

At the present stage, there is absence of material on the record sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the result of the exam stands vitiated or that there is a systemic breach in the sanctity of the exam.

The data produced on record is not indicative of the systemic leak of the question paper which would lead to the destruction of the sanctity of the exam.

The Court is also mindful of the fact that directing a fresh NEET-UG test for the present year would be replete with serious consequences for over 2 million students, including in particular - (1) disruption of the admission schedule, (2) cascading effects on the course of medical education, (3) prejudicial impact on the availability of qualified medical professionals in future, (4) serious element of disadvantage to the marginalised groups of students for whom reservations have been made in the allocation of seats.

The Court is guided by the well-settled test of the possibility of segregating the tainted from the untainted. Moreover, it is important to clarify that if the investigation reveals the involvement of an increased number of beneficiaries, action will be taken against them.

Arguments & Submissions

The bench was told that the 50th percentile represents the cut-off for qualification. The examinations consists of 180 questions, each carrying four marks, making a total of 720 marks. One negative mark is assigned for wrong answers.

The 50th percentile has worked out to 164 marks out of 720. All candidates who have attained at least a threshold of 164 marks are thus qualified for being considered for admission.

The petitioners argued that the leak was systemic in nature and coupled with the structural deficiencies in the modalities of the exam, the only course of action permissible, in view of the precedents laid down by the Court in Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE (2015), is to direct a re-test.

The Union and the National Testing Agency took the stand that the leak was localised in nature and that the beneficiaries were identifiable. The Union also cited a data analytics report prepared by the IIT-Madras which showed no abnormalities in the results or indication of any mass malpractice.

The Court pronounced the judgment in the evening after hearing the matter for nearly four days. The Court clarified that a reasoned judgment will follow.

Senior Advocates Narender Hooda, Sanjay Hegde, Advocate Mathews Nedupmara etc. argued for the petitioners. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik appeared for the Union Government and the NTA respectively.

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

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 539

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment