# Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 568
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-08-02
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vanshika-yadav-v-union-of-india-ors-38115
- **Pages:** 54

## Headnote

Whether the sanctity of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(NEET) (UG) was compromised in the year 2024 and whether the
process should be scrapped and a fresh test should be convened.
Headnotes†
Education - Medical Education - MBBS Admission -
Examination - Entrance Test - National Eligibility-cumEntrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - Leakage of the question
paper - Systemic deficiencies - Separation of tainted and
untainted candidates:
Held: It is settled law that the cancellation of an examination,
either for the purposes of gaining admission into professional and
other courses or for the purpose of recruitment to a government
post, is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the exam is
found to be compromised at a systemic level - Courts may direct
the cancellation of an examination or approve such cancellation
by the competent authority only if it is not possible to separate
the tainted candidates from the untainted ones - In the instant
case, that the question paper was leaked and some students
indulged in malpractice is beyond cavil - No party before the Court
including NTA disputes this - Certain centres found themselves
in the midst of the controversy in this case - It was averred that
malpractice was widespread in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, Patna,
Bihar, and Godhra, Gujarat - From the figures provided by NTA,
it becomes clear that there are no abnormalities in the results for
2024 when compared with the results for the past two years - The
report of the Director of IIT, Madras also supports the conclusion
of this Court - The report stated that there were no "abnormal
indications" in the results for this year, when compared to previous
* Author
46
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
years - Hence, an analysis of the results does not lend support
to the case of the petitioners who seek the cancellation of the
exam - The leak of the paper does not appear to be widespread
or systemic - It appears to be restricted to isolated incidents in
some cities, which have been identified by the police or are in the
process of being identified by the CBI - The material on record
does not, at present, substantiate the allegation that there has been
a widespread malpractice which compromised the integrity of the
exam - To the contrary, an assessment of the data indicates that
there are no deviations which indicate that systemic cheating has
taken place - The information at this stage does not show that
the question paper was disseminated widely using social media
or the internet, or that the answers were being communicated
to students using sophisticated electronic means which may
prove difficult to trace - The students who were beneficiaries
of the leak at Hazaribagh and Patna are capable of being
identified - The CBI investigation reveals the number of students
who are the beneficiaries of the malpractice at Hazaribagh
and Patna at this stage - This leads to conclude that it is
possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice or fraud from
the honest students - This being the case, the Court cannot direct
a re-exam. [Paras 61, 74, 77, 84]
Education - Examination - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - Conduct of NTA, a cause of concern:
Held: The paper was leaked in Patna and Hazaribagh - In one
of the centres, the rear door of the strongroom was opened and
unauthorised persons were permitted to access the question
papers - This indicates that there is a serious lapse in security and
that security measures which are stringent and effective must be
implemented by NTA - Further, it came to light that the question
papers were sometimes transported in e-rickshaws and that the
services of private courier companies were availed - NTA did
not specify a time by which the OMR sheets were required to be
sealed after the conclusion of the exam - Another point of concern
is that NTA relies on persons over whom it does not exercise direct
oversight to be the invigilators for the exam - There are various
met

## Text

_Characters 0–39,946 of 120,202. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39946 for what follows._

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 45 : 2024 INSC 568
Vanshika Yadav
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of 2024)
02 August 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI,* J.B. Pardiwala and
Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the sanctity of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(NEET) (UG) was compromised in the year 2024 and whether the
process should be scrapped and a fresh test should be convened.
Headnotes†
Education - Medical Education - MBBS Admission -
Examination - Entrance Test - National Eligibility-cumEntrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - Leakage of the question
paper - Systemic deficiencies - Separation of tainted and
untainted candidates:
Held: It is settled law that the cancellation of an examination,
either for the purposes of gaining admission into professional and
other courses or for the purpose of recruitment to a government
post, is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the exam is
found to be compromised at a systemic level - Courts may direct
the cancellation of an examination or approve such cancellation
by the competent authority only if it is not possible to separate
the tainted candidates from the untainted ones - In the instant
case, that the question paper was leaked and some students
indulged in malpractice is beyond cavil - No party before the Court
including NTA disputes this - Certain centres found themselves
in the midst of the controversy in this case - It was averred that
malpractice was widespread in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, Patna,
Bihar, and Godhra, Gujarat - From the figures provided by NTA,
it becomes clear that there are no abnormalities in the results for
2024 when compared with the results for the past two years - The
report of the Director of IIT, Madras also supports the conclusion
of this Court - The report stated that there were no "abnormal
indications" in the results for this year, when compared to previous
* Author
46
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
years - Hence, an analysis of the results does not lend support
to the case of the petitioners who seek the cancellation of the
exam - The leak of the paper does not appear to be widespread
or systemic - It appears to be restricted to isolated incidents in
some cities, which have been identified by the police or are in the
process of being identified by the CBI - The material on record
does not, at present, substantiate the allegation that there has been
a widespread malpractice which compromised the integrity of the
exam - To the contrary, an assessment of the data indicates that
there are no deviations which indicate that systemic cheating has
taken place - The information at this stage does not show that
the question paper was disseminated widely using social media
or the internet, or that the answers were being communicated
to students using sophisticated electronic means which may
prove difficult to trace - The students who were beneficiaries
of the leak at Hazaribagh and Patna are capable of being
identified - The CBI investigation reveals the number of students
who are the beneficiaries of the malpractice at Hazaribagh
and Patna at this stage - This leads to conclude that it is
possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice or fraud from
the honest students - This being the case, the Court cannot direct
a re-exam. [Paras 61, 74, 77, 84]
Education - Examination - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - Conduct of NTA, a cause of concern:
Held: The paper was leaked in Patna and Hazaribagh - In one
of the centres, the rear door of the strongroom was opened and
unauthorised persons were permitted to access the question
papers - This indicates that there is a serious lapse in security and
that security measures which are stringent and effective must be
implemented by NTA - Further, it came to light that the question
papers were sometimes transported in e-rickshaws and that the
services of private courier companies were availed - NTA did
not specify a time by which the OMR sheets were required to be
sealed after the conclusion of the exam - Another point of concern
is that NTA relies on persons over whom it does not exercise direct
oversight to be the invigilators for the exam - There are various
methods which may be adopted to ensure appropriate oversight
over invigilators and decrease the likelihood of the use of unfair
means - In at least twelve centres, the question paper stored in
Canara Bank was wrongly distributed to candidates - The question
paper which should have been distributed was the one stored in
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
47
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
SBI - In many centres, aspirants completed the incorrect question
paper and were ultimately evaluated while in others, the relevant
authorities realised the mistake and then distributed the correct
question paper - NTA must consider the various possibilities and
plan the protocol to be followed after careful consideration - The
use of mobile applications to communicate with the relevant parties
would permit real-time communication and allow NTA to inform
the banks even a few minutes before the time at which the city
coordinator was authorised to collect the papers - When the results
were released, it appeared that sixty-seven aspirants had scored a
perfect score of 720 / 720 - After the removal of the compensatory
marks and the conduct of the re-test for 1563 candidates and also
resolving a question in controversy in the paper by an earlier judgment
dated 23.07.2024, the number of scorers with 720/720 marks then
dropped to seventeen - Same is a matter of serious concern that
this number fell from sixty-seven to seventeen during the course of
the hearing - The intervention of the Court, reports by the media,
and representations by candidates ensured that these changes were
made in the interests of fairness and justice - However, the system
adopted by NTA should be such that just outcomes are reached
even when these external catalysts are not present - Therefore, the
NTA is directed to ensure that all the concerns highlighted by the
Court in this judgment are addressed. [Paras 96, 97, 98, 99, 102]
Education - Examination - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - Committee constituted by the Union
Government:
Held: The formation of a committee is essential to thoroughly
investigate and address the structural issues - A dedicated committee
with suitably qualified experts can ensure a comprehensive review
of the security measures, candidate verification processes, and
the overall management of the examination - By identifying and
rectifying vulnerabilities, such a committee will help restore trust
in the examination system and implement robust safeguards
to prevent future malpractice - The Union Government has
constituted a seven-member expert committee - The remit of
the Committee, in addition to the tasks that it has been entrusted
with by the Union government and the NTA, shall encompass the
following: (a) Examination Security and Administration; (b)
Data Security and Technological Enhancements; (c) Policy and
Stakeholder Engagement; (d) Collaboration and International
Cooperation; (e) Support and Training.
48
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Education - Examination - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - The remit of the Committee, in addition
to the tasks shall encompass the Examination Security and
Administration:
Held: (i) Evaluate and recommend reforms in the mechanism
of administration of the exam; (ii) Formulate standard operating
procedures which set out the timelines for registration, changes
to preferred cities, the sealing of OMR sheets once candidates
submit them to the invigilator, and other processes related to the
conduct of the exam; (iii) Review the process by which exam
centres are currently allotted to candidates and recommend any
changes which may be required in the interests of fairness and
transparency; (iv) Recommend stricter procedures for verifying
candidate identities, if required, with a view to preventing
impersonation and ensuring that only registered and authorized
candidates are allowed to take the exams; (v) Consider the viability
of comprehensive CCTV surveillance systems at all examination
centers, including real- time monitoring and recording of all
activities; (vi) Review and suggest enhancements for the processes
for the setting, printing, transportation, storage, and handling of
question papers - This may include tamper-evident packaging and
using secure logistics providers to prevent unauthorized access
and leaks during critical phases; (vii) Consider the viability of
conducting regular audits and surprise inspections of examination
centres; (viii) Recommend the development of a robust grievance
redressal mechanism - This should allow candidates to report any
irregularities or issues promptly. [Para 106(a)]
Education - Examination - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - The remit of the Committee, in
addition to the tasks shall encompass the Data Security and
Technological Enhancements:
Held: (i) Research and suggest advanced data security
protocols, including encryption and secure data transmission
methods; (ii) Recommend systems to monitor and track digital
footprints related to the examination materials; (iii) Consider
how regularly cybersecurity audits and vulnerability assessments
must be conducted to identify and address potential weaknesses
in the electronic dissemination and storage systems; (iv) Explore
technological innovations to enhance examination security and
efficiency. [Para 106(b)]
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
49
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
Education - Examination - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - The remit of the Committee, in addition
to the tasks shall encompass the Policy and Stakeholder
Engagement:
Held: (i) Review and recommend updates to the policies and
SOPs of NTA to align with best practices, ensuring that the
agency is equipped to handle evolving challenges in examination
security; (ii) Establish a transparent communication strategy
to keep all stakeholders, including candidates, educational
institutions, and the public, informed about the measures being
taken to ensure the integrity and fairness of the examination
process as well as of the response of NTA to any malpractice
which is identified; (iii) Recommend the implementation of a
comprehensive communication strategy to keep all stakeholders
involved in the process - including banks, examination centres,
and logistical partners - well-informed - This strategy should
detail the protocols for secure transportation, storage, and
handling of examination materials, and ensure regular updates
on any issues or changes; (iv) Recommend measures to
address and mitigate any socioeconomic disparities that may
affect candidates' ability to participate in or benefit from the
examination process. [Para 106(c)]
Education - Examination - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - The remit of the Committee, in
addition to the tasks shall encompass the Collaboration and
International cooperation:
Held: (i) Consider the viability of NTA engaging in international
cooperation with examination bodies and educational authorities
from other countries to share best practices, security measures, and
innovative solutions; and (ii) Suggest the creation of a management
framework to identify, assess, and mitigate potential risks related
to examination security - This framework should include protocols
for assessing risks, contingency plans, and strategies for dealing
with unforeseen challenges that may arise during the examination
process. [Para 106(d)]
Education - Examination - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 - The remit of the Committee, in addition
to the tasks shall encompass the Support and training:
Held: (i) Recommend plans or strategies for the development and
implementation of mental health support programs for students,
50
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
including counselling services and stress management workshops -
These programs should address the psychological impact of exams
and also ensure the well-being of all candidates throughout the
examination process - Qualified experts from relevant fields must
be consulted for this purpose; and (ii) Consider the viability of NTA
conducting comprehensive training programs for all staff involved
in the examination process (including but not limited to question
paper setters, invigilators, and administrative personnel) - These
programs should cover security protocols, ethical standards, and
the latest technology to ensure everyone involved is well-equipped
to maintain the integrity of the examination. [Para 106(e)]
Case Law Cited
Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board [2021]
2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631; Union of India v. Rajesh P.U.
[2003] Supp. 1 SCR 883 : (2003) 7 SCC 285 - relied on.
Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [1984] 1 SCR 73 : (1983) 4
SCC 309; Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission
[1989] Supp. 2 SCR 124 : (1990) Supp SCC 692; Bihar School
Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha [1970] 3 SCR 963 :
(1970) 1 SCC 648; Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash
Shiksha Prasar Samiti (1998) 9 SCC 236; Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE
[2015] 7 SCR 780 : (2015) 6 SCC 573 - referred to.
List of Keywords
Education; Examination; National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(NEET) (UG) 2024; National Testing Agency (NTA); Leakage of
the question paper; Systemic deficiencies; Integrity of the exam;
Tainted candidates and untainted candidates; Cancellation of an
examination; Re-exam; Examination Security and administration;
Data Security and Technological Enhancements; Policy and
Stakeholder Engagement; Collaboration and International
cooperation; Support and training.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.335 of 2024
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
51
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
W.P. (C) Nos. 362, 369, 368, 431, 379, 377, 376, 375, 425, 401, 415,
407, 412, 383, 419, 406, 403, 414, 423, 427, 441, 420, 430, 446 and
410 of 2024, T.P. (C) No.1602 of 2024, W.P. (C) Nos. 382, 394, 384,
389, 417, 393, 435, 449 and 392 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, SG, Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Narender Hooda,
Sanjay R. Hegde, Naresh Kaushik, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya,
Santosh Paul, Amit Anand Tiwari, Naresh Kaushik, P. Wilson,
Sudhanshu Choudhari, P.V. Dinesh, Thomas P Joseph, A Hariprasad,
Sr. Advs., Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Anurag Kulharia,
Vaibhav Yadav, Dr. Navya Jannu, Sunny Kadiyan, Mrs. Parul Dagar,
Rajesh Sheoran, Anas Chaudhary, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Hemendra
Singh Kashyap, Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Shaurya Lamba, Shiv Bhatnagar,
Aditya Mishra, Ashish Kumar Pandey, Yuvraj Nandal, Ms. Manisha
Sharma, Gyan Prakash, Ms. Keerti Singh, Ms. Divya Kumari Singh,
Ms. Tannu, Vedant Pardhan, Mathews J. Nedumpara, Ms. Usha
Nandini V., Ms. Maria Nedumpara, Ms. Hemali Kurne, Ms. Rohini
Amin, Shameem Fayiz, Shwetank Sailakwal, Tanmaya Agarwal, Mrs.
Aditi Agarwal, Deepak Panjwani, Anas Tanwir, Ebad Ur Rahman,
Mayank Suryan, Zaid Raza, Shahrukh Ali, Ankit Tiwari, Tanay Hegde,
Ms. Riya Sharma, Prateek Chandra, Durgesh Shukla, Mohammad
Asif Abbas, Raghav Gupta, Aayushman Jauhari, Ms. Aparna Jauhari,
Aakarsh Mishra, Aslam Ahmed Jamal, Rohit Jain, Ms. Shabiesta
Nabi, Ms. Kheyali Singh, Abhishek Dwivedi, Arun Kumar Arunachal,
Tasleem Arif, Satyapal Singh, Raees Ahmad, Harilal S, Rahat Khan
Afridi, Ms. Latika Rungta Bajaj, Zeeshan Haider, Haris Beeran, Azhar
Assees, Anand B. Menon, Ms. Maneesha Sunilkumar, Radha Shyam
Jena, Kunal Cheema, Raghav Deshpande, Shubham Chandankhede,
S.D. Singh, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Ms. Shweta Sinha, Ram Kripal Singh,
Ms. Meenu Singh, Siddharth Singh, Ashish Pandey, Prateek Rai,
Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Shubham Saxena, Dr. Daksha Sharma, Ms.
Aarti Sharma, Anmol Goyal, Anshuman Singh Khangarot, Vardhman
Kaushik, Anand Singh, Mayank Sharma, Sanjana Mehrotra, Nishant
Gautam, Dhruv Joshi, Vinay Kauhsik, Ajay Kanojiya, Rudra Rout,
Vinay Kaushik, Ms. Shikha John, Shubham Dwivedi, Ms. Charu
Mathur, Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Anukrit Gupta, Mekala Ganesh Kumar
Reddy, Anilendra Pandey, C.P. Singh, Manoj Kumar, Rajeev Kumar
Ranjan, Ms. Priya Kashyap, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Mrs. Neetu Verma,
Satendra Singh, Himanshu Chauhan, Nishesh Sharma, Shivam
52
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Singh, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Rajendra Kumar Singh, Parth Sarathi,
Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ms. Soumya Gulati,
Sanjay Kumar Visen, Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Dr. Arstu Upadhyay,
Baldev Pathania, Eshu Aggarwal, Ms. Manshi Ahuja, Ms. Mrinalini
Dayal, Ms. Anu Batra, Ms. Resha Panwar, Sudhir Naagar, Shamim
Ahammed, Supratik Sarkar, Arnab Sinha, Arko Maity, Saurav Gupta,
Alakh Alok Srivastava, Rishabh Bafna, Aditya Singh, Kamal Kishor,
Aditya Kumar, Vaseem, Tanmay Yadav, Sriharsh Nahush Bundela,
Vedant Mishra, B.K. Pal, Chinmoy Khaladkar, Suhaas Ratna Joshi,
Mahendra Singh Rawat, Ms. Mallika Joshi, P. Ramesh, Raghav
Sabharwal, Dr. Avinash Poddar, Ms. Anchal Poddar, Gaurav Gupta,
Ms. Diva Singh, Ms. Rudrani Mishra, Ms. Samiksha Goswami,
Awadhesh Sharma, Devendra Singh, Hiren Trivedi, Anuj Aggarwal,
Shubhanshu Gupta, Chaitanya, Kartik Pant, Anand Kumar Singh, Ms.
A Sumathi, Ms. Ila Shikhar Sheel, Sumeer Sodhi, Aman Nandarjog,
Ujjwal Malhotra, Feroz Shaikh, Aamir Naseem, Inam Ahmad Khan,
Danish Zubair Khan, Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, Aditya Shanker Pandey,
Atul Kumar, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Shaurya Sahay, Himanshu Sehrawat,
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Vishal Ranjan, Shaju Francis, Ms. Meenakshi Kalra,
S N Kalra, Kamal, Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Chandan Kumar Singh, Ms.
Tusharika Sharma, A. Karthik, Ms. Abiha Zaidi, Ms. Suriti Chowdhary,
Anuj Bhave, Pritam Raman Giriya, Ms. Mithu Jain, Shashwat Jaiswal,
Ravi Kumar, Divakar Kumar, Adutiya Veer, Karunakar Mahalik,
Varun Kumar, Manoranjan Mishra, Gournga Biswal, Mrs. Monika,
Sarbendra Kumar, Ms. Isha Singh, Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Narendra
Mishra, Vinod Kumar Dwivedi, Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Amarjeet
Sahani, Parvinder, Sachin Kumar Srivastava, Amrish Kumar, K.
Parmeshwar, Kanu Agrawal, Mayank Pandey, Udai Khanna, Rajat
Nair, Madhav Sinhal, Kanu Aggarwal, Ajay Kanojia, Ajay Kanojya,
Ajay Kanoiya, Ms. Ananya Sharma, Subham Diwedi, Varun Chugh,
Bhuvan Kapoor, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Samarpit Gupta, Ivan,
Pranjul Chopra, Vivek Mathur, Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Mrs.
Abhinandini Sharma, Saurabh Rajpal, Ms. Shalini Singh, Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav
Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Ms.
Astha Sharma, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Kartikeya Rastogi, Akshay
Girish Ringe, Sabarish Subramanian, C. Kranthi Kumar, Vishnu
Unnikrishnan, Apoorv Malhotra, Naman Dwivedi, Lokesh Krishnan,
Sarathraj B, Danish Saifi, Manish Kumar, Ms. Meera Kaura, Tejas
Patel, Ms. Tanushree Bhalla, Ms. Muskaan Gandhi, Ms. Ritika Saini,
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
53
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
Aditya Kumar Tripathi, Himanshu Rai, Vikash Vadit, Piyush Goel,
Sunpreet Bawa, Tarun Bajaj, Pawan Aneja, Jugul Kishor Gupta, Raj
Narayan Singh, Dilip Kumar, Ms. Babila K.K., Santosh Kumar Jha,
Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms. Sangeet Joshi, Shantanu Sharma,
R.D. Rathore, Ms. Deeksha Gaur, Sagar Pahune Patil, Ms. Pranjal
Chapalgaonkar, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Mrs. Sangeeta S. Pahune
Patil, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Kushagra Pandey, Avinash Tripathi,
Mukesh Kumar, Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Ankit Singh, Sushant, Vijay
Rajput, Yashish Chandra, Ms. Neha Rai, Madhup Kumar Tiwari,
Rajnish Kumar Singh, Abhilash M.R., Sayooj Mohandas, Tom
Jospeh, Gautam Kumar Laha, Arun Kumar, Ms. Sandra Jaison, M/s.
M.R. Law Associates, Dr. Gaurav Gupta, Ashwin Kumar Nair, Ritik
Gupta, Sunil Gupta, Mrs. Sheetal Gupta, Puneet Khanna, Mayank
Aggarwal, Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Vineet Yadav, Amir Yadav, Ms.
Anna Oommen, Ms. Anne Mathew, Sanchit Garga, Namit Saxena,
Divik Mathur, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Bijo Mathew Joy, Ms. Gifty
Marium Joseph, Dinny Thomas, Ms. Swathi H Prasad, Ms. Anzu K
Varkey, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Chandni Sharma, Abhishek Pareek,
Varun Punia, Kailash Prashad Pandey, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit
Kumar Chawla, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Mahi Pal Singh, Ms.
Manisha Chawla, Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Ms. Yamini Sharma, Ms.
Ritika Raj, Neeeraj Shrivsatav, Varun Varma, Prahkar Sukla, Ajay
Mishra, Harender K Sangwan, Akash, Ms. Chanchal, Shashank
Gusain, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Petitioner-in-Person.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents*
A.
Background .....................................................................
5
B.
Previous orders of the Court .........................................
8
C.
Submissions .....................................................................
16
D.
Issues ...............................................................................
20
E.
Analysis .............................................................................
20
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
54
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
i.
Facts which have emerged during the course of
the hearing ................................................................
20
a.
Chain of custody of question papers as detailed
by NTA .................................................................
20
b.
Issues in Hazaribagh, Sawai Madhopur, Patna
and other places .................................................
23
ii.
The marks awarded for one of the questions must
be revised because only one of the options is the
correct answer. .......................................................... 26
iii. There is no conflict of interest with the Director of
IIT, Madras analysing the data in this case .........
30
iv.
There is no evidence to indicate a systemic leak
as on date ..................................................................
33
a.
Position of law .......................................................
33
b.
The present case .................................................
38
F.
The conduct of NTA: Cause for concern .....................
51
G. Issues in the conduct of the examination and the remit
of the committee constituted by the Union Government.
55
H.
Parting remarks ...............................................................
61
1.
This batch of matters concerns the validity of the National Eligibility
cum Entrance Test1 for undergraduate students. The petitions were
disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Court by its
judgment dated 23 July 2024. Detailed reasons were to follow the
order. They are recorded in this judgment.
A.
Background
2.
The National Testing Agency2 conducts the NEET every year for
admission into medical colleges. A total of 1,08,000 seats are
available for the MBSS course. Of the seats available for the MBBS
course, approximately 56,000 seats are in government hospitals and
about 52,000 are in private colleges. Admissions to undergraduate
courses in Dentistry, Ayurveda, Unani, and Siddha also utilise the
results of the NEET for admission.
1
"NEET"
2
"NTA"
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
55
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
3.
The NEET is divided into four segments comprising Physics,
Chemistry, Botany, and Zoology. Each section contains forty-five
questions. The test comprises a total of one hundred and eighty
questions. Four marks are awarded for every question which is
attempted correctly and one mark is subtracted for each incorrect
answer. Questions which are not attempted attract neither positive nor
negative marks. Hence, the test carries a maximum of 720 marks in
total. The total duration of the test was three hours and twenty minutes.
4.
This year, NTA opened the online portal for registration for the NEET
on 9 February 2024. NEET was conducted on 5 May 2024 for over
23 lakh candidates at 4750 centres in 571 cities. The exam was
also conducted in fourteen cities overseas. Soon after the exam,
it became known that the question paper was leaked or illegally
circulated amongst some students prior to the conduct of the exam at
Hazaribagh in Jharkhand and in Patna. First Information Reports3 were
registered in multiple states including Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat,
Rajasthan and Jharkhand. The Bihar Police appears to have issued
a press release4 stating that its Economic Offences Unit had arrested
thirteen persons in Patna in connection with the leak. The Additional
Director General of Police, Economic Offences Unit appears to have
issued a communication stating that the Economic Offences Unit has
not released an official press statement.
5.
When the results were declared by NTA on 4 June 2024, it emerged
that compensatory or grace marks were awarded to 1563 candidates
at certain centres who did not have the opportunity to utilize the entire
duration of the exam (i.e., 3 hours 20 minutes). The compensatory
marks were awarded upon the recommendation of the Grievance
Redressal Committee constituted by NTA. Following the grant of grace
marks, these candidates scored in the range of -20 to 720 marks.
6.
The investigation into the leak of the paper and the adoption of other
unfair means by candidates was transferred from the Bihar State
police to the Economic Offences Unit in Bihar. The investigation was
later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.5
3
"FIR"
4
Dated 10 May 2024
5
"CBI"
56
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
7.
Various writ petitions were instituted inter alia for cancellation of the
exam and conduct of a fresh exam. The petitions variously sought
the issuance of the following directions:
a.
Direct NTA to conduct a fresh examination;
b.
Stay the counselling process scheduled to begin from 6 July
2024;
c.
Direct all states to constitute Special Investigation Teams to
investigate paper leaks in their jurisdictions and to submit status
reports on the same;
d.
Constitute an expert committee to:
i.
Enquire into the examination process and results; and
ii.
Make recommendations on how to improve the process
of conducting the examination;
e.
Set aside the portion of the NTA Information Bulletin that
discriminates between wrong questions and questions having
two wrong answers;
f.
Issue guidelines to prevent papers from leaking in the future;
g.
Direct NTA to correct and republish the results, ranks, and
percentiles based on the revised marks;
h.
Declare the award of grace marks to candidates unequally as
arbitrary and illegal; and
i.
Stay the declaration of results.
B.
Previous orders of the Court
8.
Some candidates who had appeared for the NEET objected to the
award of compensatory marks to 1563 candidates on various grounds.
By its order dated 13 June 2024, this Court noted that NTA constituted
another committee to reconsider the issue. The second committee
met on 10, 11 and 12 June 2024 to discuss the grievances raised.
It recommended that the grace marks be revoked, and the affected
candidates be given the option to take a fresh test.
9.
The 1563 affected candidates were given two options - they could
either choose to attempt the re-test, in which case they would be
ranked based solely on their scores in the re-test, or they could
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
57
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
retain their scores from the first test without the compensatory
marks. This Court found this course of action to be fair, reasonable
and justified. It also recorded the submission of NTA that the retest would be conducted on 23 June 2024 and the results would be
declared before 30 June 2024. The re-test was conducted and the
results were declared.
10. By its order dated 8 July 2024, this Court noted the central
submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners. It observed that the
question of whether the paper leak was confined only to Patna or
extended across cities was a matter which must be reserved for
more detailed consideration. It also noted that the litmus test for
whether a re-test ought to be directed was based on the following
aspects:
a.
Whether the alleged breach took place at a systemic level;
b.
Whether the breach was of a nature which affected the integrity
of the entire examination process; and
c.
Whether it was possible to segregate the beneficiaries of the
fraud from the untainted students.
11. The Court also made certain observations on the competing
considerations in a case such as the present one:
"12. In a situation where the breach in the sanctity of an
examination affects the entirety of the process and it is
not possible to segregate those who are the beneficiaries
of wrongdoing from others, a re-test is likely to be the
most appropriate course of action. On the contrary, where
the breach is confined to specific areas or centres and it
is possible to identify those who are the beneficiaries of
wrongdoing, it may not be appropriate to order a re-test
particularly in an examination which has been conducted
on such a massive scale and which involves over 23 lakh
students. The Court cannot also be unmindful of the social
consequences involving such a large body of students
who have studied for the examination, undertaken costs
and expenses and would have to undergo the rigours
of a fresh examination if one were to be ordered by the
Court. Balancing these considerations requires a careful
58
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
assessment of the extent and impact of the breach on
the integrity of the examination process, ensuring fairness
to all stakeholders."
12. Noting that a final decision in the matter would depend on a more
detailed set of facts which must be placed on record, it issued five
directions requiring the Union of India, NTA, and the Central Bureau
of Investigation to each make certain disclosures. First, NTA was
required to clarify the following aspects on the basis of all the material
which was in its possession as of that date:
"14. ... (i) When and how NTA first became aware of the
paper leak, including any internal notifications or external
reports;
(ii) The cities or towns and the centres at which a leak
has been noticed or in which candidates have complained
of a leak;
(iii) The manner in which the question papers leaked
were disseminated to candidates or other persons who
would, in turn, distribute them to candidates. In other
words, information about the medium through which the
leak took place and whether it was electronic (including
social media or mobile applications) or physical shall be
placed on record;
(iv) The duration of time between the occurrence of the
leak or the suspected occurrence of the leak and the actual
conduct of the examination which took place between 2
pm and 5:20 pm on 5 May 2024;
(v) The chain of custody of the question paper from the
time of its preparation to the time of its dissemination to
candidates on the day of the examination; and
(vi) Whether the entirety of the question paper was leaked
or whether certain sections or questions were leaked."
13. Second, the Court directed the Investigating Officer of the CBI to
file a status report indicating the status of the investigation and
the material which had been gathered until date. The Investigating
Officer was directed to specify the modalities by which the leaked
question paper was made available to students. Additionally, both
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
59
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
NTA and the CBI were directed make a disclosure in regard to the
steps which had been taken to identify the beneficiaries of the leak.
They were required to detail the following:
"16. ... (i) The steps which were taken by NTA to identify
the centres/cities at which the leak took place;
(ii) The modalities followed for identifying the beneficiaries
of the leak; and
(iii) The number of students who have so far been identified
to be the beneficiaries of the leaked question papers and
the centres at which they appeared for the examination."
14. Third, the Union of India and NTA were directed to inform the
Court as to whether it was feasible to use data analytics to identify
suspicious cases. If such an approach was found to be feasible, the
parameters used for flagging such cases (such as abnormal score
patterns) were required to be placed on record.
15. Fourth, NTA was required to make submissions on the decision to be
taken on the status of counselling, in view of the potential exercise
to be conducted by NTA or the Union Government to identify further
beneficiaries of the leak of the question paper.
16. Finally, the government was required to apprise the Court of the
steps which were being taken to ensure that the sanctity of the NEET
was not compromised in future iterations and issues similar to the
ones which arose in 2024 are not repeated in the future. The Court
was of the opinion that this was essential because the students
who appeared for the examination and whose careers hung in the
balance must have confidence in the process. The Court observed
that the government must consider constituting a multi-disciplinary
committee with experts which could recommend measures to obviate
breaches of the NEET as well as other exams conducted by NTA.
If such a committee had already been constituted, the Court was to
be apprised of its composition to enable it to consider whether the
composition ought to be strengthened.
17. The Union of India as well as NTA filed affidavits complying with the
above directions. The Ministry of Education requested IIT Madras to
undertake comprehensive data analytics on the NEET results of 2024.
The report submitted by IIT Madras was also tendered to the Court.
60
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
18. On 18 July 2024, this Court heard detailed arguments from Mr.
Narendra Hooda, senior counsel for the petitioners, on the various
issues arising for consideration in this matter. The Solicitor General
appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Naresh Kaushik, senior
counsel for NTA, also addressed the Court on certain aspects of
the case. Other counsel on behalf of the petitioners and intervenors
were heard.
19. The Court was of the opinion that it would subserve the principle of
transparency if the results were published by NTA and made available
to the public at large. Accordingly, it directed NTA to publish the
city-wise and centre-wise results of candidates on its website after
anonymising them, by 12 noon on 20 July 2024. Further, the Bihar
Police was directed to apprise the Court of the material collected by
it before the investigation was transferred to CBI. These directions
were complied with.
20. On 22 July 2024, counsel for one of the petitioners advanced
submissions inter alia on whether the approach adopted by NTA
towards one of the questions in the examination was proper. The
contours of this issue are delineated in detail in subsequent segments
of this judgment. As one of the sub-issues concerned the correct
answer to the question, the Court sought an expert opinion from
the Indian Institute of Technology,6 Delhi. The Director of IIT, Delhi
was requested to constitute a team of three experts to determine
the correct answer to the question and communicate its opinion to
the Court by 12 noon on the following day. The opinion of the expert
committee was then communicated to the Court, as requested.
21. On 23 July 2024, the arguments in the case were concluded and the
conclusions were pronounced in court after the hearings concluded.
The Court held that the standard prescribed by decisions of this
court for the cancellation of the test had not been met and that a
re-test was not warranted. The conclusion of the Court rested on
the absence of sufficient material, as on that date, indicative of a
widespread or systemic leak or other malpractice. The conclusions
of the Court are reproduced below:
6
"IIT"
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
61
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
"11. ... (i) The fact that a leak of the NEET (UG) 2024
paper took place at Hazaribagh in the State of Jharkhand
and at Patna in the State of Bihar is not in dispute;
(ii) Following the transfer of the investigation to it, the CBI
has filed its status reports dated 10 July 2024, 17 July 2024
and 21 July 2024. The disclosures by the CBI indicate
that the investigation is continuing. The CBI has indicated
that at the present stage, the material which has emerged
during the course of the investigation would indicate that
about 155 students drawn from the examination centres
at Hazaribagh and Patna appear to be the beneficiaries
of the fraud;
(iii) Since the investigation by the CBI has not attained
finality at the present WPC 335/2024 7 point of time,
this Court had in its previous order required the Union
Government to indicate whether trends in regard to the
existence of abnormalities can be deduced through data
analytics on the basis of the results emanating from 4,750
centres situated in 571 cities. Pursuant to the directions of
the Court, the Union Government has produced a report
of Indian Institute of Technology,6 Madras. The objection of
the petitioners to the report of IIT, Madras on the grounds
of alleged bias would be considered in the course of the
reasoned judgment which will follow. At this stage, in order
to obviate any controversy, the Court has independently
scrutinized the data which has been placed on the record
by the NTA;
(iv) At the present stage, there is an absence of material
on the record to lead to the conclusion that the entire
result of the examination stands vitiated or that there was
a systemic breach in the sanctity of the examination;
(v) Added to the absence of conclusive material on the
record at the present stage, the data which has been
produced on the record city-wise and centre-wise and the
comparison of data for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024
are not indicative of a systemic leak of the question paper
impacting the sanctity of the examination;
62
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(vi) In arriving at the ultimate conclusion, the Court is
guided by the well-settled 6 "IIT" WPC 335/2024 8 test of
whether it is possible to segregate tainted students from
those whose candidature does not suffer from any taint. If
the investigation reveals the involvement of an increased
number of beneficiaries over and above those who are
suspects at the present stage, action shall be pursued
against every student found to be involved in wrong
doing at any stage, notwithstanding the completion of the
counselling process. No student who is revealed to have
engaged in acts of fraud or to have been the beneficiary
of malpractice would be entitled to claim a vested right or
interest in the continuation of the admission in the future
by virtue of the findings in this judgment; and
(vii) Directing a fresh NEET (UG) to be conducted for the
present year would be replete with serious consequences
for over two million students who have appeared in the
examination. Adopting such a course of action would, in
particular, (i) lead to a disruption of the admission schedule
for the commencement of medical courses, setting back
the entire process by several months; (ii) lead to cascading
effects on the course of medical education; (iii) impact
the availability of qualified medical professionals in the
future; and (iv) cause a serious element of disadvantage
to students belonging to marginalized communities and
weaker sections for whom reservation has been made in
the allocation of seats."
22. The Court also accepted the report of IIT, Delhi on the correct
answer to a particular question which was the subject of controversy.
Consequently, NTA was directed to revise the marks of all candidates
and update their ranks on the basis of the revised results. The Court
also clarified that candidates could agitate any individual grievances,
not bearing upon the issues resolved in that judgment, before the
High Courts in accordance with law.