The Supreme Court, on Thursday, directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to release the NEET-UG 2024 marks by 12pm on Saturday, including the city and center details of the examinees, while ensuring candidate identities remain confidential.
The Court, which chose to narrow its examination of the NEET-UG 2024’s validity to two specific instances of paper leaks in Patna and Hazaribagh, stressed that its decision on whether to annul the exam and order a retest would hinge on whether the breaches were isolated or systemic.
This position was articulated during a session led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, who emphasized that those advocating for a retest must provide solid evidence of widespread leaks that could undermine the entire exam’s integrity.
“The fact that there was a leak at Patna and Hazaribagh is admitted. The question papers had been disseminated there. We want to ensure whether this was confined to those centres or widespread,” stated the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The bench highlighted the importance of publishing all results for transparency, especially given the grievances of students who need city-wise and center-wise marks to assess the extent of the breach, in case a pattern of irregularities emerges.
The petitioners also complained that the IIT-Madras report, used by the Centre and NTA to refute widespread leak claims, included data on all 2.4 million candidates, data which the petitioners did not have access to for challenging the report.
“We direct NTA to publish the marks obtained by students at the UG-2024 NEET examination, while, at the same time, without disclosing the identity of the students. The result should be declared city and centre-wise by 12 noon on 20 July 2024 and shall be uploaded on the website of the NTA,” ordered the bench despite opposition to this directive from the SG.
Setting July 22 for the next hearing, the Court requested the investigation report from the Bihar Police, which initially handled the probe before it was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on June 22. The bench also postponed its decision on commencing the counseling process, which solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said would start in the third week of July.
“The material collected by the Bihar Police through the investigation and the report of the Economic Offences Wing of Bihar Police, before the investigation was taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation, shall be filed with the Court Master by 5pm on 20 July 2024,” the court’s order said.
This year, 2.4 million students sat for the examination at 4,750 centers across 571 cities globally. However, weeks later, protests erupted across India with students alleging question paper leaks, inflated marks, and arbitrary grace marks, prompting opposition parties to demand a Supreme Court-monitored investigation. The government has consistently dismissed calls for a retest, arguing that the leaks were localized and that canceling the exam would be unfair to successful candidates.
The Court focused on determining whether the leaks were isolated or systemic, as this uncertainty has kept 2.4 million candidates anxious about their future prospects.
Of the 2.4 million candidates, approximately 108,000 qualified for medical seats in government and private colleges.
“We can’t order an exam merely because others want to take a chance. We can reorder only if you can show the sanctity of the exam has been impacted greatly,” the bench remarked as it began final arguments on the petitions filed by the NEET candidates.
While at least 131 candidates pressed for a retest, over 250 successful candidates filed applications opposing the plea.
The court’s observations took into account an incident in Godhra, Gujarat, where a teacher attempted to fill in blank answers on OMR sheets for money but was caught before the malpractice occurred. The bench dismissed this as a “localised” incident, clarifying that their focus would be on the nature of the leak at Patna and Hazaribagh, the timing between the leak and the exam, and the dissemination scale of the question paper.
“What we need to decide now is whether the leak was concentrated at Patna and Hazaribagh or was it so widespread that the sanctity of the entire exam has been compromised? Can we cancel the exam only on this basis or does it fall something short of the benchmark? That’s pertinent for us,” observed the bench.
During the hearing, the petitioners alleged a conflict of interest against the IIT-Madras director, arguing he should not have prepared the report due to his position on the NTA governing body.
SG Mehta countered this by explaining that the IIT-Madras director was an ex-officio NTA member only for conducting the JEE-Advanced exam for engineering entrance and had nominated someone else to attend NTA meetings.
The court also inquired about candidates who succeeded after changing their exam center city and registering afresh on April 9 and 10 following a Rajasthan high court order. SG Mehta and senior counsel Naresh Kaushik argued there was no possibility of malpractice due to these factors, noting that over 12,000 candidates who registered in April failed to score the minimum required marks to qualify.
During the proceedings, Mehta disclosed CBI findings on how the NEET exam was compromised at Hazaribagh and Patna, maintaining that the leak was “localised” and did not involve more than 150 students.
This came after senior advocate Narender Hooda, representing the petitioners, claimed the leak was systemic and occurred on or before May 3, 2024, when the question papers were deposited in State Bank of India and Canara banks for safekeeping. Hooda cited a media report alleging that question papers were transported in an e-rickshaw at Hazaribagh after being couriered by a private agency.
Mehta countered by stating that it was the OMR sheets, not the question papers, that were transported this way. The bench expressed concern over using a private courier for transporting question papers, especially after collecting ₹400 crore from students as entrance fees.
Mehta explained that CBI investigated the entire chain of events, from courier to question paper receipt at exam centers, and described a seven-layer safety mechanism, including automatic alerts for tampering.
Mehta described how the “breach” occurred at the Oasis School in Hazaribagh on May 5, 2024, with an accused entering the exam center at 8:01 am and exiting at 9:23 am.
“There was no leak. No leak but there was a breach. We have recovered footages of someone going inside a particular exam centre at 8.02am on May 5 and coming out at 9.23 am,” he said.
The bench questioned how the question paper traveled to Patna if the breach was at Hazaribagh and how answers were available around 10:15 am for candidates to memorize, as per the CBI reports.
“Will it be possible for them to do it within 45 minutes? 180 questions were to be solved… It appears to be very far-fetched that in 45 minutes, someone took out the question papers and solved them for others to memorise,” said the bench. Mehta replied that there were seven solvers, each given 25 questions.
Mehta clarified that not more than 150 students were involved in the breaches at Hazaribagh and Patna.
“A meticulous investigation has taken place. The person who went inside and took out the question paper has also been identified…One gang member at Hazaribagh sent it to Patna using WhatsApp. Their modus operandi was not to allow students to take photographs because if the question papers were leaked in a widespread fashion, the exam would get cancelled and nobody would earn any money,” Mehta stated.
Parents reportedly paid advance money and postdated cheques ranging from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh, as per CBI reports, with the modus operandi including destroying the question papers to prevent further dissemination.
“We are not taking this matter in an adversarial manner nor are we against the students. But the fact of the matter is that breach was localised and it took place a few hours before the exam,” emphasised Mehta, dismissing claims that high-scoring candidates benefited from the leak by noting that the top 100 candidates were spread across 95 centers in 18 states and Union territories
