The Supreme Court will hear today three petitions seeking to cancel the NEET UG 2024 test and conduct of a retest due to alleged anomalies in grant of grace marks.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta will hear the matter. The petitioners also seek stay of the counselling.
Follow this page for live updates from the hearing which will happen after 10.30 AM.
Briefly stated, the court js dealing with 3 petitions filed challenging the NEET-UG, 2024 results for widespread irregularities and raising suspicions with regard to the grant of grace marks in the test by National Testing Agency to over 1500 candidates on the ground of "loss of time".
One of the petitions was filed by Physics Wallah CEO-Alakh Pandey, who claimed that the NTA's decision to award grace marks was "arbitrary". Reportedly, Pandey collected representations from about 20,000 students, showing that about 70-80 marks were randomly awarded as grace marks to at least 1,500 students.
The second petition was filed by SIO members Abdullah Mohammed Faiz and Dr. Shaik Roshan Mohiddin, seeking recall of the NEET-UG 2024 results and conduct of a fresh exam. The petitioners alleged arbitrariness in the grant of grace marks, pointing out that marks as high as 718 & 719 out of 720 (secured by several students) were “statistically impossible”. It was claimed that NTA's grant of grace marks was a malafide exercise to give “backdoor entry” to certain students, instead of compensation for "lost time". The petitioners also raised suspicions regarding the fact that 67 students from one particular centre obtained full 720 marks.
In this second petition, the petitioners also sought a stay on the counselling to be conducted for NEET-UG 2024 admissions till investigation into allegations of paper leak was completed. They further prayed for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate into the alleged malpractices in the conduct of the exam.
The third petition was filed by NEET candidate-Jaripiti Kartheek, challenging award of grace marks as compensation for alleged loss of time during the exam. He contended that the “normalization formula” to award grace marks at best could extend only to the number of questions that may be left unanswered in proportion to the loss of time, given that each question has equal mark weightage; therefore equal time distribution to answer each question can be assumed.
Notably, on June 11, the Supreme Court issued notice on another petition filed before declaration of the NEET-UG results (on June 4), seeking cancellation of the NEET-UG 2024 test over alleged paper leak. Observing that the sanctity of the exam had been affected, the Court sought a response from the NTA on the allegations of paper leak by July 8. However, it turned down the prayer to stay the counselling process.
Previously, on June 8, the NTA and Union Education Ministry announced formation of a 4-member committee to review the results of over 1,500 candidates who were awarded “grace marks” to compensate for the “loss of time” suffered while appearing for the NEET-UG 2024 exam.
In related news, two other NEET-UG 2024 candidates viz. Hiten Singh Kashyap and Palak Mittal have moved the Supreme Court challenging the examination process as unfair. They allege that question paper leaks and misappropriation happened at mass level before and during the examination.
As per this petition, apart from paper leak, exam centre manipulations also took place during NEET-UG 2024. In this regard, it is mentioned that students from states like Odisha, Karnataka and Jharkhand chose a particular centre at Godhra, Gujarat.
Further, the petition states that award of grace marks to 1563 students of only 6 centers affected the overall merit list and fairness of the examination. It casts serious aspersions on the integrity and commitment of NTA, pointing to its denial of paper leak despite evidence in that regard: "The NTA's refusal to acknowledge the leaks despite the evidence raises serious concerns about its commitment to ensuring a fair examination process. This denial also casts doubt on the NTA's ability to conduct secure and transparent examinations".
Case Details:
Abdullah Mohammed Faiz and Anr. v. National Testing Agency (NTA) and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 369/2024
Alakh Pandey v. National Testing Agency and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 368/2024
Jaripiti Kartheek v. National Testing Agency (NTA) and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 366/2024
