Supreme Court rejects NEET-UG retest request, cites insufficient evidence

The Chief Justice referenced a study from IIT Delhi that determined choice 4 was the correct answer to a question in the NEET paper that had two correct options.

Follow us:

ANI/X

On Tuesday, the SC ruled against demands made to reconduct the NEET-UG exams. The SC claimed that there wasn’t sufficient evidence that would make a direct link from a systematic link to the question paper. As per the court, re-conducting a fresh NEET-UG paper would have consequences for the 24 lakh students who appeared for the exams.

DY Chandrachud’s take on NEET-UG

A three-judge panel led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was deliberating on a number of petitions calling for a retake of the NEET-UG exam, which was held on May 5 of this year, due to malpractices, including question paper leaks. Chief Justice Chandrachud delivered the ruling, stating that the National Testing Agency's statistics and an IIT Madras analysis, which demonstrated that there had been no widespread paper leak, had been closely examined by the court.

The situation at hand

"At present, there is a lack of evidence in the file to conclude that the exam's outcome is tainted or that there is a systematic violation of the exam's integrity," stated the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice stated that the court was aware that giving students who took the exam another chance would have "severe repercussions." The court ruled that holding a retest for this year could have negative effects on the medical education program, disrupt the admissions schedule, affect the supply of qualified medical professionals in the future, and disadvantage the marginalized students for whom seat reservations were made.  The court made it clear that they would face consequences if the CBI probe turned out evidence of more beneficiaries of the paper leak.

The Chief Justice referenced a study from IIT Delhi that determined choice 4 was the correct answer to a question in the NEET paper that had two correct options. In addition, the Chief Justice gave the NTA instructions to update the outcome using the revised alternative. He also made it clear that the petitioners might use the legal system to pursue their rights and remedies if they had any complaints about this ruling.