.png?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
The Supreme Court of India, today, Tuesday, July 23, rejected the petitions seeking a re-test, and cancellation of results of the National Eligibility and Entrance Test - Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 exam.
The court, while declaring the verdict, said that the data on record does not indicate that there has been a systemic leak of the question paper, which may have disrupted the sanctity of the exam.
The verdict was announced by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, who said, “At the present stage, there is an absence of materials on record to show results of the exam were vitiated or there was a systemic breach in the conduct of the exam.”
Yet, the inconsistencies that were flagged during the process of the NEET UG hearing cannot be dismissed. The issue of the arbitrary awarding of grace marks without clarification will go down as one of the biggest blunders committed by the examination conducting body, the National Testing Agency (NTA).
The issue was briefly taken up at the hearing today. The CJI inquired about the 1,563 candidates who were asked to appear for a re-test, as they were awarded grace marks.
Here is how the conversation ensued
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta informed the CJI that a re-test for these 1,563 students was done from six centres. They were initially awarded the marks as they were not given 3.2 hours, either the Canara Bank question paper or a question paper with the wrong medium of instruction.
As of the re-test, the SG further informed that not all students were awarded compensatory marks. Some were given marks in accordance with a proportionate formula, previously applied to the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT) exam. He informed the CJI that the same methodology was applied based on their score and the time they lost.
On the use of Canara Bank papers, the CJI was informed by the SG that 12 centres used the Canara Bank papers, whence four centres replaced them with State Bank of India (SBI) papers. Hence, only eight centres used the question papers from Canara Bank, which was the reserved set of papers.
Issue of moderation
As per the Supreme Court hearings, almost 3,307 candidates were not assessed based on SBI papers, but that of Canara Bank. The CJI further inquires if moderation has been done between the Canada and the SBI papers.
To which the SG replied that for both the papers, similar moderators are instated.
Senior Advocate Mr Narender Hooda raised an important question. As per LiveLaw, he said, "There are no two question papers which can be at power in my opinion. The average for the SBI paper is 164 marks, but what are the average marks of the people who attempted the Canara Bank paper? They have not given this data."
How are the papers distributed?
On the CJI's further enquiry on how the Canara Bank question papers were distributed in the first place, the SG explained the process by saying that city coordinators are appointed for the task, who are further authorised by the Director General (DG) of the NTA. The city co-ordinator as per the rule, accompanies the centre superintendent as well as a neutral observer appointed by the NTA, who could either be a principal or a lecturer.
The CJI then interrogated if the banks were duly informed about it in the morning of the exam, that the SBI question paper should be handed over. To this, the SG replied, "Both banks are instructed," as per LiveLaw.
However, here is a point of contention, as according to Bar and Bench, the SG confirms it to be a "lacuna", where the SG stated that "both banks should be told that you release the papers and you do not release the papers", which may bear an indication, that there may be smaller loopholes, which if ignored, can lead to several confusions, unreasonably causing a hassle to students, or resulting in mass chaos.
The SG later argues for the system saying that there can be a space for human errors. "The system as a whole has worked except human error at 0.3 per cent centres (eight out of 4753 centres)"
Can there be a scope for error?
As per a report by The Indian Express, the 1,563 candidates were from Jhajjar in Haryana, Tura in Meghalaya, and Dantewada and Balod in Chhattisgarh. The focus was on the students from Jhajjar as the grace marks led six students who attempted the exam at a Jhajjar centre to bag a full score, making them toppers of the examination.
The report further included a student's testimony who had their centre in Jhajjar. They mentioned that the exam, which was initially supposed to begin at 2 pm, commenced only at around 3 pm. Later on, they were also given another set of question papers and were asked to await instructions on when to begin their exam.
The confusion and a barrage of different statements on delayed and wrong question papers continued till the end of the hearing as advocate Hooda added another point to support his case.
He referred to the two centres in Haryana: Jhajjar and Bahadurgarh, during the hearing. He added that these two centres were the ones to have granted an extension of time.
He asserted, as per Bar and Bench, that the case at Hardayal School was indeed a "curious" one. He stated, "They say the papers distributed were both SBI and Canara Bank. This is on the two-page note they gave... What is this system? After some time, the SBI paper was withdrawn. Who gave this instruction, if the SBI paper was the actual paper?... Absolutely no sanctity."
In addition to this, the advocate stated that there is a video and a transcript of the principal of Hardayal School on record, where she stated that there has been no delay. The students were supplied with the Canara Bank question paper, and after it was realised that the SBI question paper was to be given, the authority immediately contacted the NTA, and as per its instructions, let the students continue with the Canara Bank paper.
A question, hence, arises — Can an exam held for lakhs of students, annually, have room for errors, human or otherwise? As rightly pointed out by Senior Advocate Narender Hooda if an exam of such proportion, and the sanctity of the profession be safeguarded by the keepers, like that of the NTA, to vouch for a much better and improved system. Can students rightly place their faith again on the system, after an episode of uncertainty and chaos? NEET 2025 shall answer.
