Madras High Court: In the present petition, a NEET (UG) 2025 candidate sought a direction to the Selection Committee, Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, to call him for counselling and allot a seat for BSMS/BAMS/BUMS/BHMS courses under the Tamil Nadu Government quota, claiming that his original score of 478 was later reduced to 132 without notice and seeking admission based on the higher score. A Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J., while dismissing the petition, held that such conduct could not be treated lightly, since the act of the petitioner and all those involved with him suffered from moral turpitude. Apart from the disqualification from taking the NEET examination, the Court emphasised that a police investigation must be conducted to identify the individual(s) responsible for tampering with the scorecard submitted by the petitioner during the admission process.
Background:
The case arose from the petitioner’s claim that he secured 478 marks out of 720 in the NEET (UG) 2025 examination, with an All-India Rank of 1,76,174 and a category rank of 69,213 under the Other Backward Classes — Non-Creamy Layer (‘OBC-NCL’) category. Based on this score, he applied for counselling for admission to BSMS/BAMS/BUMS/BHMS courses for the academic year 2025—2026 under the Government quota in Tamil Nadu, conducted by the Selection Committee.
However, when the provisional list of allotted candidates was published on 10-10-2025, the petitioner’s name was missing. He contended that several candidates with similar or even lower scores had been allotted seats under community categories such as BCM. Upon rechecking the portal of the National Testing Agency (‘NTA’), the petitioner discovered that his marks were now shown as 132. He alleged that this change was unilateral and unexplained, and that no prior notice had been given to him. Consequently, he filed the present writ petition before the Court.
When the matter was heard on 27-10-2025, the Court directed the NTA, to obtain instructions regarding the discrepancy in the petitioner’s marks. At the subsequent hearing, the NTA submitted a typed set of papers. It was contended that the QR code on both versions of the scorecard, when scanned, reflected only 132 marks. To support this, the NTA relied on the petitioner’s OMR sheet and the corresponding calculation sheet. It was further submitted that, due to the act committed by the petitioner, he would be debarred from appearing in the NEET examination for a period of three years.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the petitioner correctly answered 49 questions and committed errors in 64 questions, resulting in a total score of 132 marks. It was further noted that the document styled as the scorecard, in which the total marks were mentioned as 478, was a fabricated document. The tampering occurred specifically in the column “total marks obtained.” The Court highlighted that the petitioner failed to realise that tampering could only be done with the visible numbers, whereas the QR code embedded in the document could not be altered. Therefore, when the QR code was scanned, it reflected only 132 marks, contrary to the 478 marks shown in the tampered scorecard.
The Court emphasised that the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands and had based his claim on a forged and fabricated document. While acknowledging that the petitioner was aged about 21 years, the Court further observed that there must be someone behind the petitioner who was indulged in tampering with the scorecard. Prima facie, the Court was of the view that the act of the petitioner and all those involved with him suffered from moral turpitude.
The Court highlighted that such conduct could not be treated lightly and that an investigation was necessary. Apart from the disqualification from taking the NEET examination, the Court held that a police investigation must be conducted to identify the individual(s) responsible for tampering with the scorecard submitted by the petitioner during the admission process. The Court stressed that only stringent action would deter such misconduct in the future.
Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed it. The petitioner was directed to pay a cost of Rs 25,000 to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund. The Court further directed the Selection Committee to file a formal complaint before the jurisdictional police station concerned along with a copy of the order. Upon receipt of the complaint, a first information report was to be registered and investigation commenced to identify the actual culprits behind the fabrication and forgery of the document. Accordingly, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
[D. Mohammed Nadeem v. NTA, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9769, decided on 28-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Abhinav Parthasarathy
For the Respondents: A.R.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Sunitha, Standing Counsel, Shubharanjani Ananth, Counsel, K. Ramanamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel, M. Sneha, Special Counsel, K. Tippusultan, Government Advocate