SC seeks IIT Delhi’s help to resolve NEET-UG question controversy

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Monday sought an expert opinion from IIT-Delhi to resolve a controversy over a NEET-UG 2024 question that awarded marks for two different answers – a decision that has the potential to trigger a complete overhaul of NEET ranks and affect the scores of over 2.3 million students who appeared for the exam that has already been mired in controversy over alleged paper leak and other malpractices.

Even as the uncertainty surrounding the examination’s validity and potential retest keeps the candidates on tenterhooks, with their career prospects hanging in the balance, the top court proceeded to direct for determination of the correct answer for the disputed question, emphasising that there could only be one correct answer and that the Centre and the National Testing Agency (NTA) were required to follow pertinent regulations on marking.

A bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, asked the director of IIT-Delhi to form a team of three experts to determine the correct answer for the disputed question and submit a report by 12 noon on Tuesday when the matter will be heard next.

“In order to resolve the issue as regards the correct answer, we are of the considered view that an expert opinion should be sought from IIT-Delhi. We request the director of IIT-Delhi to constitute a team of three experts on the subject concerned. The expert team is requested to formulate the opinion on the correct option and remit the opinion to the registrar by 12 noon tomorrow,” the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ordered. The registrar general was instructed to communicate the order to the IIT-Delhi director promptly to ensure swift action.

A decision on this matter is crucial as it may necessitate a complete re-evaluation of NEET ranks and scores for all 2.3 million students. Currently, the scores of at least 420,000 students, including 42 of the 61 who achieved perfect marks of 720, could decrease by five points if the court decides to invalidate the disputed marks. This adjustment could ripple through the entire ranking system, significantly altering the standings of students nationwide.

During the hearing, the bench considered a complaint from a group of students who had left the contentious question unanswered to avoid negative marking, while those who chose either of the two disputed answers were awarded four marks each. They argued that according to NTA guidelines, students should follow the latest edition of the NCERT textbook. They asserted that the correct answer for one of the questions, as per the latest NCERT edition, was option 4, while the old NCERT syllabus indicated option 2 as correct. They contended that NTA’s decision to award marks also for option 2 citing some representations contradicted its own guidelines, which required following the latest NCERT edition.

The bench noted the merit in the petitioner’s argument. “This is a powerful argument. The instructions are that ‘you go by the latest NCERT edition’. Option 4 is the correct answer as per the latest NCERT edition. Then those who answered option 2 cannot be given full marks...There has to be only one correct answer,” it said.

Responding, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, informed the bench that 420,774 candidates had selected option 2 (old NCERT edition answer) while 928,379 candidates chose option 4. He explained that the NTA awarded marks for option 2 after receiving representations from students who used old textbooks. Acknowledging that there should be only one correct answer, Mehta assured the court that he would return with instructions on the issue at the next hearing.

Allegations of systemic failureResuming their arguments on the retest, the petitioners, led by senior counsel Narender Hooda and Sanjay Hegde, assailed the validity of NEET-UG 2024, citing paper leaks and other malpractices. They argued that these issues represented a “systemic failure” in maintaining the exam’s credibility. They supported their claims with statements from paper leak accused individuals before the Bihar police, suggesting that the paper was leaked at Hazaribagh and reached Patna much earlier than the official date of May 5.

Responding to these allegations, the bench observed that the petitioners may be right in claiming that the leak happened before May 5 because some of the statements by the accused show that candidates were memorising the answers on the night of May 4.

At the same time, the bench stressed that the petitioners would have to adduce more evidence to show the widespread nature of the leak.

“You have only been able to show the leak at Hazaribagh and Patna. You must tell us how widespread is this? We don’t have any other material to show the leak was widespread...At the end of it, we are looking at the entire country. There might be some problem. We can remedy the loopholes...We can address separately and ask the SG to tighten up,” the bench said.

The bench also directed NTA to address several queries regarding the distribution of wrong question papers at eight centres across the country. The issue came up after the bench was told that the irregularities were apparent from how students at many centres received question papers taken out of Canara Bank instead of the correct booklets that were kept in the State Bank of India. Hooda complained that NTA did not follow any principles and initially gave grace marks to candidates at all such centres irrespective of the fact whether the wrong question papers were replaced with the correct ones, or the candidates were allowed to solve the same question papers.

The court sought a clarification about how the centres that got the Canara Bank paper. “How many centres evaluated question papers based on Canara Bank’s booklets? Once Canara Bank’s papers were evaluated, how did the students fare, and why was the answer key not declared? How did Canara Bank distribute the question papers to coordinators when the papers were supposed to be taken from SBI Bank?” asked the bench.

NTA refutes conflict claims in report by IIT-Madras directorNTA also submitted a fresh affidavit to the court refuting allegations of a conflict of interest against the IIT-Madras director. The director’s report has been heavily relied upon by NTA and the Union government to deny claims of a widespread leak and systemic failure in the conduct of NEET-UG 2024.

NTA’s affidavit clarified that the director of IIT-Madras, which holds the responsibility of conducting JEE (Advanced) in 2024, is an ex-officio member of the NTA governing body. However, it emphasised that the core functions of NTA are executed by its managing committee, while the governing body only handles policy matters.

The affidavit also stated that the IIT-Madras director had nominated another professor to attend the governing body meetings, with the nominee participating in the last meeting in December 2023. The director himself has not attended any NTA general body meeting since December 2022, it added.

During a hearing on July 18, petitioners demanding a retest raised the issue of a conflict of interest, arguing that the IIT-Madras director should not have prepared the report due to his position on the NTA governing body. SG Mehta countered this argument, asserting that the director’s role as an ex-officio member was solely to conduct the JEE-Advanced exam. He also noted that the director had delegated another professor to attend NTA meetings.

While hearing the case on July 18, the Supreme Court had directed NTA to publish the marks obtained by all students in NEET-UG 2024, including the city and centre where the students appeared for the exam, with the candidates’ identities masked. This data, the court suggested, could potentially reveal patterns indicating whether some centres or regions had an inordinate number of successful candidates. NTA complied with the directive and released the data on Saturday.

The NEET-UG 2024 examination saw 2.3 million students appearing at 4,750 centres across 571 cities worldwide. However, the weeks following the exam were marred by widespread protests across India, with thousands of students demonstrating against allegations of question paper leaks, inflated marking, and arbitrary allowance of grace marks. Opposition parties have also called for a Supreme Court-monitored probe into the allegations. Despite the outcry, the government has ruled out a retest, maintaining that the leaks were localised and arguing that cancelling the exam would be unfair to the successful candidates.