NEET-UG 2024 Hearing LIVE Updates: Hearing To Resume Tomorrow, IIT-D Panel To Decide Correct Answer

The bench, led by CJI Chandrachud, decided to seek expert opinion on the correct answer for the disputed question. The order states, "We request the Director of IIT Delhi to constitute a team of three experts of 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." Read more. 

“One of the questions of the NEET-UG 24 exam read as follows. As indicated in the question as framed of which students had to select one option as their answer. 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 of the subject concerned. The expert team constituted by the Director is requested to formulate the opinion on the correct option and remit the opinion to the Registrar by 12 noon tomorrow. Registrar General is requested to communicate the order to the IIT Delhi Director so that expeditious steps for the preparation of the opinion can be taken,” Bench dictates order.
 

CJI : As regards question 19, we can appoint an expert body and ask them to give the correct option, possibly by tomorrow .

SG : Allow me to respond tomorrow morning.

The counsel submitted that re-test will cause immense hardship and will delay the timeline for admissions. Bench is now hearing petitions against retest.
 

CJI asked the remaining lawyers, who are arguing for a re-test, to send written submissions by email. 
 

“What is worrying us is that, over 4 lakh students have got the benefit of what you have done,” CJI told NTA for awarding full marks for 2 correct options in a question. 
 

CJI : Why did NTA eventually come to the conclusion to give marks to both options? 

SG : Because both were possible answers. 

Counsel : It is not possible. Statement 2 says "Atoms of each elements are stable and emit their characteristic spectrum". As per old NCERT, it says Atoms of each elements. But new NCERT says, atoms of "most" elements. Both options can't be correct. 

CJI : Students are expected to follow new or old NCERT editions.

 SG : New edition. CJI : By giving marks to option 2, you are going against your own rule that old edition can't be followed. 

SG : 4,20,774 attempted option 2(old NCERT edition answer) 9,28,379 attempted option 4 (new NCERT edition answer) So the 4.20 lakh students will lose the 4 marks and also get one negative marks if option 2 is treated as wrong. 

Counsel : The provisional answer key gave the correct answer. But later they changed and decided to give marks for option 2 as well.

Advocate Nedumpara suggested, “Treat this as a preliminary examination and conduct a main exam.”

Hegde : NEET is also used as a qualification. If you are qualified for NEET, you are not just qualified for govt seats. Many foreign countries also accept NEET. So 164 cut-off, which turns to about 13 lakhs, have all of them been judged with a fair standard?

Hegde : Can we say everybody got marks which they were fairly entitled to? A competitive exam result with  61 toppers cannot be trusted. 
CJI : Out of 61, 44 are those who got grace marks. Hegde :For two options for one questions. That also means those 44 got marks for getting 179 questions right. That is also a high figure.

Hegde : If the syllabus had been easy, then rising tide raises all boats together. In that magic zone above 650, there are more than 50,000 students. This is a huge red flag.

Your lordships on this date do not know how many got into the system. Each govt seat is govt spending a crore per student per year. 

Advocate Hooda asked the court to consider ordering a re-exam for at least those who cleared the NEET-UG (13 lakh candidate), if re-NEET for all is not possible. 

Advocate Hooda pointed out that there was no CCTV surveillance in NEET exam centre. It is a systematic failure. 

“You have pointed out issues like no clarity on when the OMR sheets are sealed, time gap between the exam and the deposit of OMR sheets, lack of address verification,” CJI said. The hearing will resume at 2 pm after lunch break. 

Hooda : There is systemic failure.. 

Justice Pardiwala : "There are two ways of looking. Yes, there was a paper leak. Is it your argument that systemic failure led to paper leak? Hooda : No. J Pardiwala :At this point digressing from the issue of paper leak, to what extent we can go into the issue of systemic failure? 

Hooda : As regards paper leaks, the direct evidence is before the Court. Since petitioners are not privy to the investigation, we can fall back only on the circumstantial evidence. 

CJI : So the alternate hypothesis is that because of the systemic failures it can possibly spread.. 

Advocate Hooda highlighted the fact that a candidate can register with wrong address simply to choose a desired centre and NTA does not authenticate the address of candidates.

"As per their system, if I am a resident of TN and I want a centre in Sikar, I can simply write the address of Sikar. Many candidates have travelled from Odisha and Karnataka to Godhra. One girl who got over 700 marks in NEET-UG failed in her Class 12 exam. 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 don't have to submit any documents?

Hooda : Absolutely no.

CJI to SG : Does the student at any time in the registration process show any document that he is a resident of the address?

SG : I will address that after enquiring.

NTA : Grace marks were given only to the students whose paper (Canara bank) was withdrawn midway and the SBI paper was given.

Advocate Hooda questioned NTA that how did they evaluate the answers of candidates  who attempted the Canara Bank question papers? NTA released only one answer key given for question papers distributed from SBI bank.

The CJI inquired whether the banks were instructed not to release the papers, specifically asking if Canara Bank was informed. The SG affirmed that messages were sent to the banks. Despite this, the error occurred, and the center-in-charge collected the wrong set of papers.

The NTA acknowledged the mistake, attributing it to both the coordinator and the bank. They revealed that in eight centers, the wrong booklet (Canara Bank paper) was distributed. The NTA counsel reassured the court that both sets of papers from SBI and Canara Bank had the same difficulty level.

As the Supreme Court continues to examine these irregularities, today's verdict could have significant implications for the future of the NEET-UG 2024 examination process and the students involved.

Senior Advocate Hooda highlighted the anomaly, noting that the principal of Hardayal Public School, Haryana  had collected exam papers from both Canara Bank and State Bank of India (SBI). However, the Canara Bank papers were distributed to students, resulting in six students scoring 720/720, and others scoring 719 and 718. This prompted questions about how one center could produce so many top scorers. The National Testing Agency (NTA) initially claimed that grace marks were given due to a delay, but the principal contradicted this, stating there was no delay and confirming that Canara Bank papers were distributed, not SBI papers.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud questioned how the center-in-charge at Jhajjar accessed the Canara Bank papers. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta suggested it might have been a mistake. The NTA counsel explained that Jhajjar was a new center, and the city coordinator might have missed the message, leading to papers being collected from both banks.

“We don't have any material so far to show the leak was so widespread and spread across the country,” CJI noted.

Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi said in the parliament, “Indian examination system is a fraud. Millions of people believe that if you are ric, you can buy the Indian examination system. As this is a systemic issue, what exactly are you doing to fix this at the systemic level.”

CJI : The first statement indicates that the leak happened on the (May) 4th night If the leak has taken place on the night of the (May) 4th, then obviously the leak did not took place not at the process of transportation, and it took place prior, at the strong room vault.

CJI : All problem solvers are students. None of them are professors.

CJI : Some are from AIIMS Patna, some from Ranchi and from Rajasthan. 

SG : They bifurcated the papers and each had 25-30 questions. 25 questions, with computers and books can be easily solved.

“In 2010, for the first time, a decision to conduct a common national-level entrance exam for MBBS, BDS admission was taken by the then government (congress). Earlier, CBSE used to conduct the AIPMT. From 2017, NTA took over the responsibility to conduct NEET-UG. The demand to scrap NEET, is a politically motivated demand,” the minister replied in the parliament. 

Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan said, “Some cases of malpractices have come to light. Out of 4700 centres, only in one place in Patna, there is an incident of anomaly. CBI is proving and the action has been taken. We are not hiding anything. There is only one incident of malpractice recorded in Patna.”

While replying in the Lok Sabha, union education minister, Dharmendra Pradhan said, “There is no evidence of NEET Paper Leak. The matter is pending in the top court. It is observed that some unfair means have been used by some.”

The Chief Justice of India, after reading the statements/ confessions made by the arrested accused said, “This indicates that students were being asked to memorize on the night of 4th which means that the leak had happened prior to 4th.”
 

Reiterating his allegations, advocate Hooda said,  “It is not that some peon went to the paper room and gave it to some 5-10 students. It was handiwork of a gang who have done it in past too. Sanjeev Mukhya and all have not been arrested.” Hooda refers to the statement of Anurag Yadav recorded by Bihar police. Read his confession here.

Advocate Hooda reiterated that the leak happened on May 3rd. “They admit paper leak, they admit dissemination happened on WhatsApp. Bihar police materials indicate that students were given leaked papers on 4th. Leak did not happen on the morning of May 5 as was suggested.  Leak happened prior to the deposit of the question papers with the respective banks. That is 3rd of May or prior to that. Their suggestion that it happened on the 5th morning is hard to believe and contrary to the reports of the Bihar police,” he said in court. 

 

The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India has started hearing the NEET matters. 

Advocate Narendra Hooda said, “NTA has published the results. They have not given All India Rank, they have not given the seriatum of the exam centres. They have given centre-wise and city-wise. They have withheld All India Rank and serial number of the exam centres.”

NTA has informed that NEET-UG Counselling will begin on June 24. Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) will conduct the counselling for MBBS, BDS admissions.

Supreme Court is Likely To Pass Its Final Verdict on NEET-UG 2024 Petitions. 

During a hearing on July 18, petitioners demanding a re-test highlighted the conflict of interest issue, arguing that the IIT-Madras director's dual roles compromised the report’s integrity. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered these claims, stating that the director's involvement was strictly related to his role in conducting the JEE-Advanced exam and that he had appropriately delegated his duties regarding NTA meetings.
 

NTA, in its affidavit, stated that the IIT Madras Director who prepared the report had not attended any General Body meetings of the NTA since December 2022.

The NTA emphasized that the primary functions of the NTA are managed by its Executive Committee, with the Governing Body's role being limited to policy matters. To avoid any conflict of interest, the IIT Madras Director had designated another professor to attend Governing Body meetings on his behalf. This designated individual participated in the last meeting held in December 2023.
 

NTA, in its additional affidavit, addressed the allegations of a conflict of interest involving the Director of IIT Madras. The director was responsible for preparing the data analytics report in question. The NTA clarified that the directors of IITs responsible for conducting the Joint Entrance Examination (Advanced) in a given year are ex-officio members of the NTA's Governing Body. For 2024, IIT Madras was tasked with organizing the JEE (Advanced).

National Testing Agency has filed an additional affidavit in Supreme Court today.

Surprisingly, in the centre-wise result, the NEET exam centre in Haryana, which had six students scoring a perfect 720 out of 720 marks, now had none of the candidates scoring above 682 marks. The results showed a stark contrast as seen in the city-wise results. As per the results announced by the NTA, only one student managed to score 682.

As per the order passed by SC on July 18, NTA published the centre-wise and city-wise NEET-UG 2024 results on Saturday, July 20. The result showed that the candidates who allegedly benefitted from the NEET leak and other irregularities did not perform well in the exam. However, some centres recorded a high concentration of good scorers.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra is likely to pass the verdict today.