NEET Supreme Court hearing: Here are 6 major driving points of the conversation so far

The Supreme Court hearing on the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 is gradually gaining momentum today, Monday, July 22. The bench, which includes Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, sought clarification on the paper leak issue following reports of alleged malpractices at various centres in Bihar, Jharkhand, Haryana, and other locations.

Here are several key points that were presented during the proceedings as the counsel for the National Testing Agency (NTA), the Solicitor General, and senior advocate Narender Hooda, strive to make their arguments, as per tweets by LiveLaw.

Statement 1:

In the report submitted by the Economic Offences Unit (EOU) of the Bihar Police, the CJI was presented with evidence and statements of the people arrested by the police, but due to the presence of "variances" in statements, the CJI commented,

"Even so, we have to see if the leak is localised and confined only to Hazaribagh and Patna or whether it is widespread or systemic. We do not have material so far to show the leak was so widespread and spread across the country..."

Statement 2:

With regards to confusion with the centres in Jhajjar's Haryana, the confusion with the set of papers (either SBI or Canara Bank), and the awarding of grace marks, advocate Hooda questioned:

"With regard to Jhajjar, in first response they said Canara bank paper was given and evaluated. Now they say no grace marks was given and extra time was given. Who took the decision? In Hardayal school, the students who got 719 marks and the rank was 68. After re-test, the rank is 58,00. Now they do not know whether Canara Bank paper or SBI paper was given. On 4th June, one SBI key was given. On 4th June, they did not disclose grace marks were given..."

Statement 3:

When it comes to students choosing their centres, one may exercise their freedom to choose centres at a place of their preference. Advocate Hooda stated that students from Odisha and Karnataka travelled to Godhra and that it needs to be looked into

"Hooda: They do not authenticate address. Anyone can write any address and choose any centre.

CJI: A student can choose any centre in any part of the country and you do not have to submit any documents?

Hooda: Absolutely no."

Later on, the CJI went on to say:

"Also, Mr Hooda, in many professional exams, students do choose some centres, because there is a perception that the marking is lenient in those centres. That may not be a ground to cancel the examination."

Statement 4:

Rajasthan's Sikar produced phenomenal results, but it also gave rise to suspicion when 37 of the top 50 performing centres were from the region. Here is what Mr Hooda argued, followed by the CJI's response on Re-NEET

"Hooda: City coordinators are the owners of these schools. These are private schools. Invigilators are the employees of these schools. Possibility cannot be ruled out that these teachers are in league with the coaching centres in Kota and Sikar.

CJI: Assuming that it is so, can that be one ground to cancel the exam for the entire country or to cancel the exam only for Sikar?"

Statement 5:

Now, let's come to the issue where advocate Hooda highlighted that there was a paper leak due to major systemic failures. Justice Pardiwala intervened and questioned if the issue was about the paper leak and if the focus should also be on the failure of the system, the CJI too questioned,

"If there are any loopholes, we will address that.. basically you have concentrated on Hazaribag, Patna... some lapses in Bahadurgarh... where do you demonstrate a systemic failure?"

Statement 6:

The CJI mentions that the choice of centre cannot be grounds for cancellation of the entire exam.

The bench shall resume from 2 pm onwards.