Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

"No Systemic Breach in NEET 2024," Supreme Court Declines to Cancel Exam Despite Paper Leak

02 September 2024 11:55 AM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India has refused to cancel the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2024, rejecting petitions that sought the exam's annulment due to a question paper leak. The Court, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, determined that the breach did not compromise the examination's overall integrity and that it was feasible to identify the beneficiaries of the fraud. The decision has significant implications for the future conduct of national exams, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the balance between fairness and the practicality of conducting large-scale exams.

NEET 2024, a critical examination for medical college admissions in India, was conducted on May 5, 2024, for over 23 lakh candidates across 4750 centers in 571 cities. Soon after the exam, reports emerged that the question paper had been leaked in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, and Patna, Bihar. This led to widespread concern and several petitions seeking the cancellation of the exam, alleging that the leak had compromised the examination's fairness. The National Testing Agency (NTA), responsible for conducting NEET, faced scrutiny over its handling of the question papers and the subsequent investigation into the leaks.

The Supreme Court extensively analyzed whether the paper leak in Hazaribagh and Patna had compromised the integrity of NEET 2024 at a systemic level. The Court concluded that while the breach was serious, it was not widespread enough to warrant the cancellation of the entire exam. The Court noted, "The material on record does not substantiate the allegation that there has been widespread malpractice which compromised the integrity of the exam"​.

The Court was satisfied with the ongoing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had identified around 155 students from Hazaribagh and Patna as beneficiaries of the leaked papers. The Court emphasized that since it was possible to segregate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones, a re-test was not necessary. "If the investigation reveals the involvement of an increased number of beneficiaries over and above those who are suspects at the present stage, action shall be pursued against every student found to be involved in wrongdoing," the Court stated​.

The Court acknowledged certain procedural flaws in NTA's management of the exam, including the improper distribution of question papers at some centers. However, it was noted that NTA took corrective measures where possible and that these issues did not justify the cancellation of the entire exam​.

Proportionality in Judicial Review: The Court applied the principle of proportionality, considering whether the cancellation of the exam would be a proportionate response to the breach. It was held that canceling the exam would have serious consequences for over two million students and would disrupt the admission schedule for medical courses across the country. The Court observed that "directing a fresh NEET (UG) to be conducted for the present year would be replete with serious consequences for over two million students"​.

Examination Data Analysis: The Court also relied on a data analysis report by IIT Madras, which found no abnormal indications in the NEET 2024 results that would suggest mass malpractice. The report supported the conclusion that the breach was localized and not indicative of a systemic failure​.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the NEET 2024 results despite the question paper leak underscores the judiciary's careful consideration of fairness and practicality in large-scale examinations. The ruling sends a strong message about the importance of maintaining the integrity of national exams while ensuring that corrective measures are targeted and proportionate. The ongoing investigation and the Court's directives for future conduct highlight the need for robust security measures in the administration of such critical exams.

Date of Decision: July 23, 2024

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

Similar News