Explained| Supreme Court verdict on NEET UG 2024

Supreme Court: While hearing petitions seeking the cancellation of the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (‘NEET’) for the Under-Graduate (‘UG’) 2024 over an alleged paper leak, irregularities and grant of grace marks over alleged ‘loss of time’, the Three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra JJ. has refused to order a reexamination for the NEET UG 2024 stating that at the present stage there is absence of material on record to lead to the conclusion that the result of the exam was vitiated or that there was a systemic breach of the sanctity of the exam. Further, as it is possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice or fraud from the honest students, the Court refused to direct a re-exam.

Background:

The National Testing Agency (‘NTA’) conducts the NEET every year for admission into medical colleges. This year, NTA opened the online portal for registration for the NEET on 9-02-2024. NEET was conducted on 5-05-2024 for over 23 lakh candidates. Soon after the exam, it became known that the question paper was leaked or illegally circulated amongst some students prior to the conduct of the exam at Hazaribagh in Jharkhand and in Patna. First Information Reports were registered in multiple states. The Bihar Police issued a press release stating that its Economic Offences Unit had arrested 13 persons in Patna in connection with the leak. The Additional DGP, Economic Offences Unit issued a communication stating that the Economic Offences Unit has not released an official press statement. When the results were declared by NTA on 4-06-2024, it emerged that compensatory or grace marks were awarded to 1563 candidates at certain centres who did not have the opportunity to utilize the entire duration of the exam. The compensatory marks were awarded upon the recommendation of the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by NTA. Following the grant of grace marks, these candidates scored in the range of – 20 to 720 marks.

Thereafter, various writ petitions were instituted inter alia for cancellation of the exam and conduct of a fresh exam.

Previous orders of Court:

By its order dated 13-06-2024, the Court noted that the Centre’s stand that grace marks given to 1563 candidates for loss of time will be cancelled and option for retest will be granted only to those students who were granted the grace marks.

The 1563 affected candidates were given two options — they could either choose to attempt the re-test, in which case they would be ranked based solely on their scores in the re-test, or they could retain their scores from the first test without the compensatory marks.

Thereafter, by order dated 8-07-2024, the Court observed that the question of whether the paper leak was confined only to Patna or extended across cities was a matter which must be reserved for more detailed consideration. It also noted that the litmus test for whether a re-test ought to be directed was based on some aspects. Noting that a final decision in the matter would depend on a more detailed set of facts which must be placed on record, it issued five directions requiring the Union of India, NTA, and the Central Bureau of Investigation to each make certain disclosures.

In order dated 18-07-2024, the Court opined that it would subserve the principle of transparency if the results were published by NTA and made available to the public at large. Accordingly, it directed NTA to publish the city-wise and centre-wise results of candidates on its website after anonymising them, by 12 noon on 20 July 2024.

Thereafter, on 22-07-2024, the Court sought an expert opinion from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. The Director of IIT, Delhi was requested to constitute a team of three experts to determine the correct answer to the question and communicate its opinion to the Court by 12 noon on the following day.

On 23-07-2024, the Court while reserving the detailed judgment, held that the standard prescribed by decisions of this Court for the cancellation of the test had not been met and that a re-test was not warranted. The Court also accepted the report of IIT, Delhi on the correct answer to a particular question which was the subject of controversy. Consequently, NTA was directed to revise the marks of all candidates and update their ranks based on the revised results.

Issues:

• Whether the answer for the question in controversy ought to be revised by NTA?

• Whether there was a conflict of interest with the Director of IIT, Madras, analysing the data in this case?

• Whether the sanctity and integrity of the exam were compromised at a systemic level?

Analysis and Decision:

The Court noted the chain of custody of question papers as detailed by NTA. Further, the NTA reported that the examination paper leak occurred between 8:02 am and 9:23 am on 5 May 2024. The investigation has revealed that the question paper was shared with the candidates only after 10:15 am, and after 12 noon, they were asked to go to their examination centres. NTA issued a press release on 5-05-2024, acknowledging the issue of incorrect distribution of question papers, which resulted in a significant loss of time for the candidates.

The Court noted that the CBI has indicated that about 155 students from the examination centres in Hazaribagh and Patna appear to be beneficiaries of the fraud. No material was placed to demonstrate that the question paper or the solved answers were circulated at random or en masse over social media.

The Court said that this situation highlights several administrative and procedural flaws within NTA’s management of the exam, as:

• The fact that question papers from Canara Bank were distributed to students in twelve centres instead of papers from SBI reveals a lapse in coordination and oversight.

• The fact that four centres managed to rectify the mistake while eight continued with incorrect papers suggests a lack of effective communication between NTA, the centre-coordinators and the banks involved in the distribution process.

• The use of e-rickshaws for transporting question papers to examination centres raises concerns about the security and reliability of paper-handling procedures.

• The use of private courier services for transporting examination materials introduces variability in handling standards and may not ensure the same level of security as official channels. Proper protocols and accountability measures need to be in place to ensure that such services maintain the highest standards of security and reliability.

• CCTV surveillance is essential for monitoring activities and ensuring that all procedures are followed correctly. Any deficiency makes it challenging to prevent, detect, and address any irregularities or breaches that may occur during the examination process.

The Court also disapproved the decision of the National Testing Agency (‘NTA’) to treat two options as the correct answers for one question.

After accepting the expert report submitted by an expert team regarding this ambiguous question, wherein the expert team constituted has opined that option (4) is the correct answer, the Court stated that both options are mutually exclusive and cannot stand together. Thus, the NTA’s decision to award marks for both options were not justified. The validity of the question is upheld, and NTA must treat only option (4) as the correct answer. Therefore, the Court directed that option 4 should be treated as the correct answer and the NTA was asked to re-tally the results accordingly. Concerning the concerns that the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education made a request to the Director, IIT Madras to undertake comprehensive data analytics of the results of all candidates who appeared in the exam this year, the Court said that his report cannot be faulted on the ground of bias.

The Court said that the cancellation of an examination, either for the purposes of gaining admission into professional and other courses or for the purpose of recruitment to a government post, is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the exam is found to be compromised at a systemic level. Courts may direct the cancellation of an examination or approve such cancellation by the competent authority only if it is not possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones.

After referring to Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (1990) Supp SCC 692, the Court said that the purpose of testing whether the integrity of the exam has been compromised at a systemic level is to ensure that the cancellation of the exam which has already taken place and the conduct of a fresh examination is a proportionate response. This is also why courts are required to assess the extent of the use of unfair means and separately, consider whether it is possible to separate tainted and untainted candidates. A holistic view must be taken.

The Court also added that in arriving at a conclusion as to whether an examination suffers from widespread issues, Courts must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, point to that conclusion. There must be at least some evidence to allow the Court to reach that conclusion.

The Court emphasized that this standard need not be unduly strict. It is not necessary for the material on record to point to one and only conclusion which is that malpractice has taken place at a systemic level. However, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise as borne out by the material before the Court.

The Court described the aspects of the NEET and took note of the data on the percentage of success from different centres. The Court said that there are no abnormalities in the results for 2024 when compared with the results for the past two years.

After perusing the report of the Director of IIT, Madras, the Court noted that the report stated that there were no “abnormal indications” in the results for this year, when compared to previous years. It also stated that “analysis shows that there is neither any indication of mass malpractice nor a localized set of candidates being benefitted leading to abnormal scores.”

The Court said that an analysis of the results does not support the case of the petitioners who seek the exam’s cancellation. The leak of the paper does not appear to be widespread or systemic. It seems to be restricted to isolated incidents in some cities, which have been identified by the police or are being identified by the CBI.

Thus, the Bench concluded that sufficient material is not on record at present, which indicates a systemic leak or systemic malpractice of other forms, and that there has been widespread malpractice which compromised the integrity of the exam.

The Court remarked that an assessment of the data indicates that there are no deviations which indicate that systemic cheating has taken place. After perusing the material on record, the Court said that the question paper was not disseminated widely using social media or the internet, or that the answers were being communicated to students using sophisticated electronic means. The Court noted that the students who were beneficiaries of the leak at Hazaribagh and Patna are capable of being identified. The CBI investigation reveals the number of students who are the beneficiaries of the malpractice at Hazaribagh and Patna at this stage. If it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones, there would be no justification to cancel the exam. This is because honest candidates would be made to suffer without reason due to the actions of some unscrupulous candidates. Thus, the Court concluded that it is possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice or fraud from the honest students. This being the case, the Court refused to direct a re-exam.

The Court also showed concern on the conduct of NTA in organising the exam and remarked that “a body such as NTA which is entrusted with immense responsibility in relation to highly important competitive exams cannot afford to misstep, take an incorrect decision, and amend it at a later stage. All decisions must be well considered, with due regard to the importance of the decision. Flip flops are anathema to fairness”.

Thus, the Court directed NTA to ensure that all the concerns highlighted by the Court in this judgment are addressed. The committee constituted by the Union Government was also requested to keep these issues in mind while formulating its recommendations.

The Court noted that the Union Government has constituted a seven-member expert committee, chaired by Dr K Radhakrishnan, former Chairman, ISRO to ensure a comprehensive review of the security measures, candidate verification processes, and the overall management of the examination. The Bench suggested a few additions to the tasks that the Committee has been entrusted with by the Union government and the NTA:

• Examination Security and Administration

• Data Security and Technological Enhancements

• Policy and Stakeholder Engagement

• Collaboration and International Cooperation

• Support and Training

The Court, in view of the expanded remit of the committee in terms of this judgment, provided additional time to the Committee to submit the report to the Ministry of Education by 30—09-2024. Thereafter, the Court directed the Ministry of Education to decide on the recommendations made by the committee within one month from receiving the report, and to prepare and begin to implement a plan of action on this basis. The Ministry of Education was also directed to report compliance with these directions within two weeks of taking the decision on the implementation of the recommendations

Also read:

[NEET UG 2024] Supreme Court issues notice to NTA and Union Govt. seeking response on alleged paper leaks and malpractices

[NEET UG 2024] Patna HC permits CBI to take custody of 13 accused in NEET paper leak case