NEET SC hearing: Detailed discussions on paper leaks at Hazaribagh, Patna & Godhra in court

The Supreme Court of India, while hearing several petitions today, Thursday, July 18, following the anomalies that occurred in this year's National Eligibility and Entrance Test - Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 exam, scrutinised the issue of the paper leaks at Godhra in Gujarat, Patna in Bihar, and Hazaribagh in Jharkhand.

The bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra were hearing the petitions. Looking into the case of the paper leaks, the judges inquired into the chain of events — right from the custody of question papers to the leaks. Here is what happened:

The petitioner's counsel Senior Advocate Narendra Hooda shed light on the chain of events — beginning from the dispatch of question papers to the centres on April 24 to its reaching the designated bank vaults on May 3. The CJI, thence, reflected on the time taken for the process, which is nine days.

Incidents at Hazaribagh, Jharkhand & Bihar, Patna
1) Mr Hooda contended that for Hazaribagh, the papers were dispatched on April 28 and not 24. The solicitor general then clarified and affirmed that there are two printing presses because there are two papers, and the distribution of papers to cities takes place between April 24-28.

2) The petitioner's counsel, from a National Testing Agency (NTA) affidavit, read out that the sealed iron trunks containing question papers for Hazaribagh were dispatched on April 28, 2024. They were loaded in a "closed body vehicle", and sealed with an electronic lock, along with a one-time seal. The vehicle further is equipped a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker which gives real-time information.

3) The counsel then stated that such a trunk (with papers) was transported via an e-rickshaw on May 3 to a principal of a school, who was later arrested by the CBI. He added that the NTA affidavit fails to mention this.

Given a major deficit in the process, the counsel said, "There is a systemic failure and it is multi-dimensional", as the transportation of the paper was compromised. This is because the papers were under the custody of private courier services and were transported in an e-rickshaw.

Hooda also said that there are photographs of the trunks with question papers being carried in e-rickshaw, and the accused principal was the city coordinator hence, part of the NTA.

4) On dissemination of the papers, Hooda informed the bench about the evidence which proved that videos circulated on a messaging app, Telegram, with solved question papers were circulated on May 4 itself, and the extent of the spread is yet to be determined. The NTA refuted this claim saying that it is a "doctored video".

5) Referring to the leak in Bihar Patna, Hooda referred to the statement recorded by the Bihar Police of accused Anurag Yadav. The CJI stated that if students were made to memorise answers on the morning of May 5, it would mean that questions were solved beforehand, further indicating that the leak may have happened prior to the night of May 4, either on May 3 or when the papers were bound for the exam centre.

"Breach" that took place
6) The solicitor general mentioned that in a particular centre (at Hazaribagh) between 8.02 am to 9.23 am, a person allegedly took photos of the paper and left the centre. The questions were divided between solvers and students were later made to memorise the solved answers.

The CJI rejected the hypotheses and called it "far-fetched" as an hour may not be sufficient for the process to be effectively carried out.

7) How did the paper travel from Hazaribagh to Patna? The solicitor general mentioned that the paper was sent via messaging app, Whatsapp, by a gang member. In advance, post-dated cheques were given by the parents to contain leaks, and students were not allowed phones. The CJI stated that it would be alarming if the date of the breach was not known. "What is worrying us is, how much was the period between the breach occurred and the exam? If the time period is 3 days, obviously there is a greater danger," stated LiveLaw.

Breach at Godhra, Gujarat
8) When inquired by the CJI if similar methods were carried out outside Hazaribagh and Patna, Hooda, the petitioner counsel, said that in Godhra, a Geography lecturer Tushar Bhatt would have been made to fill blank OMR sheets. The counsel argued that if the question paper was not previously known, it would not have been possible for a geography teacher to attempt this.

9) The solicitor general further informed Tushar Bhatt was in-charge of the centre at Godhra and that nobody (students who later changed centres) from Godhra will be getting an admission.

10) The CJI ruled that Godhra seems a "localised issue" and the crisis was averted before the exam started. The petitioner's counsel argued that the paper footprint was not only confined to Patna. 

As per LiveLaw, the CJI nullified Godhra being a centre of malpractice, "Mr Hooda, Godhra, we cannot say it was a part of widespread malpractice...firstly, there is no evidence that the cheating took place, and we can place it at the same level as Patna or Hazaribagh."

First breach at Hazaribagh
11) While the petitioner's counsel emphasised that a breach took place even if the Godhra breach was averted, the solicitor general accepted that a breach occurred in Hazaribagh's Oasis School, where a total of 2,736 students appeared and 80 students qualified.

12) The whole process of the leak from Hazaribagh to Patna was orchestrated carefully, as outlined by the solicitor general. He mentioned that the gang ensured that the transfer of data took place with a new phone and a new sim, to contain the leak. A shred of evidence, burnt question papers, were also recovered.

The session was concluded with the CJI demanding a copy of the Bihar police report. The bench will resume its hearing on Monday, July 22. The CJI further added that results are to be declared separately, city and centre-wise, by Saturday, July 20, masking the identity of the candidates.