NEET UG 2024 SC Hearing Highlights: Supreme Court refuses to cancel NEET-UG 2024 exam, says demand not justified based on material on record

Senior Advocate Hooda raised concerns about the potential extent of the NEET UG 2024 paper leak. He suggested that if Sanjeev Mukhiya, allegedly involved in multiple paper leak cases, is arrested, it might reveal connections to up to 200 individuals in Sikkim or even other locations like Mukhtsar, Punjab. Hooda questioned whether the investigation’s current focus on four locations could overlook a broader network involving hundreds of individuals across numerous centers.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) stated that while the investigation currently indicates the leak is confined to Patna and Hazaribagh, it cannot be definitively said that the leak is limited to these two cities, as the investigation is ongoing.

The CBI officer has used the word ‘so far’ they have not gone beyond Patna and Hazaribagh, says Adv Hooda.

“The moment it is established that leak has happened, that dissemination is through WhatsApp mode, that there is the handiwork a gang operating in different States.. Now, government of India taking a firm stand that the beneficiaries of the leak are confined only in Hazaribagh and Patna. This confidence emanates from only and only one fact – that the accused in custody so far has said that the leak is confined, ” says Hooda

Senior Advocate Hooda stated that Sanjeev Mukhiya, the alleged head of the paper leak gang, has not been arrested despite his involvement in at least five major paper leak cases across UP, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Hooda highlighted that this information is available in the public domain and needs verification by the CBI.

The Chief Justice of India asserted that the Supreme Court must apply the same standards to all students, rejecting a counsel’s request to exempt students from Naxal and remote areas from a potential retest. The CJI emphasised that uniform rules should be enforced for everyone

The Supreme Court bench has proposed a solution for Physics Question 19. The Chief Justice suggested that while Option 4 should be considered correct, no negative marking should be applied for this question. Instead, bonus marks for the question should be revoked.

“IIT report is staring us in our face. now suppose we are not setting aside the whole exam.. what if we say that only option 4 is correct answer but we also say that anybody who chose option 2 will not get negative marks. Please speak to NTA director,” says CJI.

A petitioner argues that changing the rules mid-examination is unfair. They note that the student would have scored 716 if she had not attempted the question, but with the current corrected option, she faces a 5-mark deduction, lowering her score to 715. The petitioner also points out that there was no prior indication of a book change, asserting that altering rules during the exam undermines fairness.

Advocate Tanvi Dubey, representing the All India Rank 1 student, states that her client scored 720 out of 720. Dubey argues that if the student had not attempted question 19, she would have lost 4 marks, and selecting the now-corrected option would result in a 5-mark deduction, reducing her score to 715. Dubey highlights that the information bulletin did not specify the necessity to refer to old NCERT books and contends that altering the rules mid-examination is unfair.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud mentions that the court referred to the IIT report with the Solicitor General’s consent and suggests concluding the discussion on that point. Solicitor General adds that those who followed the NCERT book option should not be disadvantaged. Justice Manoj Mishra counters, emphasizing that the focus is on fundamentals, not rote learning. SG responds, noting that approximately 422,000 students could be affected by the issue.

‘The wrong answer published by NCERT since years…the revised version was brought in from November 2022 and students had already started preparing for NEET by then,’ says SG.

Solicitor General describes Physics Question 19 as a “trick” question rather than ambiguous. “I have received several emails, and while I don’t intend to rely on them, old books are available in the market,” the SG notes.

‘After examination was over, some student either uploaded the question paper himself or gave it to someone. In order to hide their identity, they masked the unique number,’ Solicitor General said.

In the ongoing Supreme Court hearing, Solicitor General Mehta noted that while the IIT report corroborates the localised nature of the paper leak, no forensic comparison has been conducted between the leaked question paper posted on Telegram and the actual exam papers. Justice Manoj Mishra raised concerns about whether such a comparison was performed to determine if the leaked paper matched the one used in the exam.

The court has recognised that the conclusions drawn are based on scientific investigation methods. Solicitor General Mehta cited previous judgments where investigating agencies confirmed that the paper leak was extensive and involved movement across several states.

The Solicitor General (SG) presented evidence in court that a Telegram group was created on May 6. The SG explained that one of their officers joined the group to gather evidence, revealing that the account was set up on May 6 and the content was manipulated to appear as though it was from before May 5.

The Solicitor General (SG) claimed that the paper leak occurred on the morning of May 5, noting that students had only a few hours to review the answers, which is reflected in their results. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) pointed out that only two students achieved scores of 573 and 581, arguing that this supports the claim of the leak having happened on the morning of May 5.

A Digital Investigation Group (DIG) officer is currently elaborating the complexities of the digital leak and how it took place.

During the NEET UG 2024 Supreme Court hearing, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud inquired about the role of Telegram in the case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta explained that digital media was used to disrupt the examination process, presenting a document where one of their officers joined a Telegram group to gather evidence. The CJI noted that the account in question was created on May 6, with content manipulated to appear as if it was posted before May 5.

During the NEET UG 2024 Supreme Court hearing, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized the need to conclude the proceedings promptly, stating, “If we are ordering a retest, students must know they need to start preparing; if not, they should be informed accordingly. We cannot keep them hanging.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured that he would require only 20-25 minutes more to address the remaining points.

J. Pardiwala asked if the entire booklet was photographed. The NTA responded that each page was captured on CCTV footage. The candidates had 1 hour and 20 minutes for the exam, and both the OMR sheet and the question booklet were numbered identically and came in the same packet.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra will now re-convene hearing NEET matter shortly.

The NTA has admitted that 3,307 candidates attempted the wrong question paper at eight exam centers where the papers were stored in Canara Bank. The answer key for the Canara Bank papers was uploaded on July 3. Mr. Mehta informed the court that the difficulty levels of both the correct paper, stored in SBI vaults, and the incorrect paper from Canara Bank strong rooms, were the same.

The officer told apex court during the hearing, that some electronic gadgets belonging to the gang were recovered yesterday. While some gadgets were destroyed, others were salvaged and will be investigated. If WhatsApp chats have not been deleted, they may reveal the cities where the leaked paper was distributed. However, interrogation has revealed that most gadgets used in the cheating operation were destroyed.

CJI questioned the timeline, suggesting that the solvers may have received the question paper by 8:30 a.m. rather than the 45 minutes originally believed.

The official clarified that the question paper was actually transferred around 9:24 a.m. The mobile phones of the conspirator and the person who received the papers at the Hazaribagh guest house are unavailable.

The Chief Justice of India pointed out that resealing plastic with a lighter would leave burn marks and inquired about the people arrested in the NEET paper tampering case. It was noted that invigilators usually sign off on question papers to confirm there is no tampering, but in this case, they signed off despite evidence of tampering.

The official confirmed that the center superintendent and city coordinator, who were part of the conspiracy, had been arrested. These individuals were involved in the conspiracy and took money. Additionally, a middleman acted as a bridge between the gang and the students. The conspiracy was planned months in advance to identify a vulnerable center willing to facilitate the tampering.

The CBI officer has demonstrated in court that the NEET UG paper leak was not widespread but was confined to Hazaribagh and later transmitted to a single center in Patna. The CBI, along with the Centre and NTA, is arguing that the leak was limited to a few centers and did not affect the broader examination process.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, will reconvene after lunch at 2 pm.

‘Now we know that there was a leak very much and that it originated in Hazaribagh and was transmitted to Patna,’ says CJI.