The Supreme Court has decided not to cancel the NEET-UG 2024 exam, despite allegations of a paper leak and malpractices. The Court found no evidence suggesting a systemic breach that would compromise the integrity of the entire exam.
The Court emphasized that canceling the exam would have significant consequences for over 23 lakh students, disrupting the academic schedule and causing a ripple effect in future years.
Acknowledging leaks in centers in Hazaribagh and Patna, the Court noted the lack of sufficient evidence to suggest that the results were completely compromised or that there was a widespread breach in exam integrity. The data on record did not indicate a systemic leak.
The Court ruled that re-examination or cancellation of the NEET-UG 2024 was unjustified based on the available evidence. A bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued this decision in response to petitions seeking to annul the exam due to paper leaks and malpractices.
Additionally, the Court directed the NTA to re-tally the results after rejecting the decision to treat two options as correct for one ambiguous question. The NTA was instructed to consider option 4 as the correct answer based on an expert report from IIT-Delhi.
The Court acknowledged the CBI's ongoing investigation into the leaks, which implicated around 155 students from Hazaribagh and Patna. However, there was no evidence to suggest widespread fraud affecting the entire exam. The Court stressed the serious consequences of ordering a new exam, including disruption to the admission schedule, impacts on medical education, and disadvantages to marginalized students.
The bench considered arguments that the leak was systemic and affected the exam's integrity, but found that the issue was localized and the beneficiaries were identifiable. The Court's decision followed four days of hearings, with a detailed judgment to be issued later. Senior advocates represented the petitioners, while the Union Government and NTA were represented by the Solicitor General and senior advocates.
%20(4).jpeg)
