138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad 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.

Latest Legal News