NEET-UG 2024 | IIT Delhi Director's Expert Panel To Offer Opinion On Right Answer; Updates From Hearing

CJI Chandrachud wanted to have an expert's opinion on formulating the correction option to a question, which will have a bearing on those who attempted that question. He said the question had two right options as suggested by the National Testing Agency. “To resolve the issue, the IIT Delhi Director will have to constitute a team of three experts of the subject concerned. The team will formulate an opinion as to which will be the correct option and forward it to the Registrar by 12 noon,” he said. The CJI also asked the Registrar General to communicate the same with the IIT Delhi Director to expedite the process. Chandrachud said the hearing will continue Tuesday.

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, representing the petitioners’, prayed that this exam can be treated as a preliminary exam as was in the case of JEE and the National Testing Agency should conduct a main NEET-UG exam. The counsel said, “re-test is a question of common sense, prudence.” “NTA's chart is manifestly incorrect, this bell chart is a fraud,” Nedumpara told the court. He informed the court that the “leak industry is worth Rs. 2500 crores”. He said leaks have been happening for many years and that the stations in Haryana which were under scanner now were in the radar back then too. He said Latur and Rajkot are not great educational hubs.

The petitioners’ counsel senior advocate Sanjay Hegde wanted to know whether we will take the risk of letting cancer cells grow. "When you suspect cancer and the tests are inconclusive, then the best thing to do is to go for chemotherapy," he said, adding that "to this date do not know how many got into the system. For each government seat, the government has been spending a crore per student per year."

Hegde stressed that the ongoing CBI investigation is not confined to Patna and instead covers multiple states and the officials have not concluded whether the paper leak was localised or it was widespread. The counsel questioned as to "how could we say that marks obtained by candidates’ are fair?"

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde who started his closing arguments said the latest the leak might have happened could have been on the night of May 4 or even much before that. "Admittedly, there has been a leak from Hazaribagh. It was caught at Patna. We do not know today, where all it leaked. "Investigation" reports say some of these messages went to about 100 people," the advocate said.

"We do not know about the extent of the leak, timing of the leak, there is some certainty, that it did not happen on the morning of (May) 5th. It happened at least on the night of May 4th or prior to that," he said.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda who resumed arguing for the petitioners, wanted to know whether the National Testing Agency would like to answer the queries that he had raised. CJI Chandrachud said the respondents would reply whenever their turns came. He also urged Hooda to conclude his arguments by summarising it. Hooda agreed. Hooda in his submission said the claim of the government and the NTA that they were monitoring every step of the examination process was not right. He said he has his proof. Hooda also sought a re-test for at least 13 lakh candidates who have qualified in the examination, if the Court was not willing to cancel NEET.

CJI Chandrachud and his brother Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra broke for lunch. Chandrachud asked senior advocate Narender Hooda representing the petitioners seeking a re-examination, to summarise his arguments after lunch. The CJI wanted to know whether Hooda was building a case of lapses and irregularities in the conduct of examination to show that there was a possibility of a widespread leak of the question paper, attesting the systemic lapses. Hooda subscribed to the CJI's summarisation and said that the circumstantial evidences point to the same.

The question of Canara Bank question papers being used came up during the arguments. A government counsel representing the National Testing Agency informed the court that 3,307 candidates were given the Canara Bank Question Paper, from eight centres all over India.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta joined in the submission and stated that the difficulty level of the examination was same for the SBI question and that of the Canara bank.

The government counsel said, in some places, the Canara bank papers were withdrawn. CJI Chandrachud wanted to know in how many places such incorrect question papers were withdrawn and how many of them are there who had been given grace marks.

The respondents said 1,563 students suffered by the withdrawal of wrong Booklets were given.

Key questions posed by CJI to NTA and Centre

1. CJI observes that it appears the NEET-UG question paper leak happened before May 4. Asked for explanation
2. How were students allowed to answer the wrong question paper, which was collected from the Canara bank by an authorised person, for 3 hours?
3. CJI asks petitioners’ counsel to show data to establish their point that the leak was widespread
4. In how many centres the wrong question was distributed? And, how many students were evaluated on the basis of the Canara bank question paper.
5. Why did the NTA not declare the Canara Bank paper’s answer key?
6. Why did city coordinators in Jhajjar go to both the SBI and the Canara bank to collect the papers?

CJI Chandrachud leading the Bench hearing the NEET-UG petitions asked Hooda who was representing petitioners to show the court through data to establish that his argument that the NEET-UG exam should be cancelled due to paper leak. Hooda sought time and proceeded with his submissions on as to how the National Testing Agency had not released the answer key to Canara Bank question paper and has not made clear how it decided to award grace marks to all the students.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda's submission that the paper leak happened before May 5 prompted a response from the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The SG said Amit Anand is a middleman. "He was collecting the students on the night of (May) 4th so that he can get the papers on May 5. Nitish Kumar was at the place where the papers were received on May 5," he added.

Citing Amit Anand’s statement, CJI Chandrachud observed that it seems the papers were handed over to students' on the night of May 4 to memorise the answers. "The statement of one of the accused is at variance, as one statement says the leak happened on May 4 night, and the second statement says it was received on WhatsApp on May 5 morning," he added.

The Supreme Court asked the counsel for the parties what had emerged from the declaration of the centre-wise and city-wise NEET-UG results published by the National Testing Agency (NTA). Senior advocate Narender Hooda wanted his submissions related to the statements showing the accused, establishing the time of leak and how it had been systemic. CJI Chandrachud-led Bench allowed Hooda to continue with his submissions.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda, who was appearing on behalf of the NEET-UG aspirants, said the National Testing Agency (NTA) tasked to conduct the gatekeeping exam has admitted to paper leak. He noted that the dissemination of the leaked question paper had happened through WhatsApp. Paper was leaked after they were deposited in the bank and stressed that Centre’s statement that leak happened on the morning of the examination day is not correct. He added the statements of Nitesh Kumar, Amit Anand and Sikander Prasad, accused apprehended in Bihar, and their 161 statements indicate that the leak is much prior to the examination.

CJI Chandrachud wanted to have an expert's opinion on formulating the correction option to a question, which will have a bearing on those who attempted that question. He said the question had two right options as suggested by the National Testing Agency. “To resolve the issue, the IIT Delhi Director will have to constitute a team of three experts of the subject concerned. The team will formulate an opinion as to which will be the correct option and forward it to the Registrar by 12 noon,” he said. The CJI also asked the Registrar General to communicate the same with the IIT Delhi Director to expedite the process. Chandrachud said the hearing will continue Tuesday.

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, representing the petitioners’, prayed that this exam can be treated as a preliminary exam as was in the case of JEE and the National Testing Agency should conduct a main NEET-UG exam. The counsel said, “re-test is a question of common sense, prudence.” “NTA's chart is manifestly incorrect, this bell chart is a fraud,” Nedumpara told the court. He informed the court that the “leak industry is worth Rs. 2500 crores”. He said leaks have been happening for many years and that the stations in Haryana which were under scanner now were in the radar back then too. He said Latur and Rajkot are not great educational hubs.

The petitioners’ counsel senior advocate Sanjay Hegde wanted to know whether we will take the risk of letting cancer cells grow. "When you suspect cancer and the tests are inconclusive, then the best thing to do is to go for chemotherapy," he said, adding that "to this date do not know how many got into the system. For each government seat, the government has been spending a crore per student per year."

Hegde stressed that the ongoing CBI investigation is not confined to Patna and instead covers multiple states and the officials have not concluded whether the paper leak was localised or it was widespread. The counsel questioned as to "how could we say that marks obtained by candidates’ are fair?"

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde who started his closing arguments said the latest the leak might have happened could have been on the night of May 4 or even much before that. "Admittedly, there has been a leak from Hazaribagh. It was caught at Patna. We do not know today, where all it leaked. "Investigation" reports say some of these messages went to about 100 people," the advocate said.

"We do not know about the extent of the leak, timing of the leak, there is some certainty, that it did not happen on the morning of (May) 5th. It happened at least on the night of May 4th or prior to that," he said.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda who resumed arguing for the petitioners, wanted to know whether the National Testing Agency would like to answer the queries that he had raised. CJI Chandrachud said the respondents would reply whenever their turns came. He also urged Hooda to conclude his arguments by summarising it. Hooda agreed. Hooda in his submission said the claim of the government and the NTA that they were monitoring every step of the examination process was not right. He said he has his proof. Hooda also sought a re-test for at least 13 lakh candidates who have qualified in the examination, if the Court was not willing to cancel NEET.

CJI Chandrachud and his brother Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra broke for lunch. Chandrachud asked senior advocate Narender Hooda representing the petitioners seeking a re-examination, to summarise his arguments after lunch. The CJI wanted to know whether Hooda was building a case of lapses and irregularities in the conduct of examination to show that there was a possibility of a widespread leak of the question paper, attesting the systemic lapses. Hooda subscribed to the CJI's summarisation and said that the circumstantial evidences point to the same.

The question of Canara Bank question papers being used came up during the arguments. A government counsel representing the National Testing Agency informed the court that 3,307 candidates were given the Canara Bank Question Paper, from eight centres all over India.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta joined in the submission and stated that the difficulty level of the examination was same for the SBI question and that of the Canara bank.

The government counsel said, in some places, the Canara bank papers were withdrawn. CJI Chandrachud wanted to know in how many places such incorrect question papers were withdrawn and how many of them are there who had been given grace marks.

The respondents said 1,563 students suffered by the withdrawal of wrong Booklets were given.

Key questions posed by CJI to NTA and Centre

1. CJI observes that it appears the NEET-UG question paper leak happened before May 4. Asked for explanation
2. How were students allowed to answer the wrong question paper, which was collected from the Canara bank by an authorised person, for 3 hours?
3. CJI asks petitioners’ counsel to show data to establish their point that the leak was widespread
4. In how many centres the wrong question was distributed? And, how many students were evaluated on the basis of the Canara bank question paper.
5. Why did the NTA not declare the Canara Bank paper’s answer key?
6. Why did city coordinators in Jhajjar go to both the SBI and the Canara bank to collect the papers?

CJI Chandrachud leading the Bench hearing the NEET-UG petitions asked Hooda who was representing petitioners to show the court through data to establish that his argument that the NEET-UG exam should be cancelled due to paper leak. Hooda sought time and proceeded with his submissions on as to how the National Testing Agency had not released the answer key to Canara Bank question paper and has not made clear how it decided to award grace marks to all the students.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda's submission that the paper leak happened before May 5 prompted a response from the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The SG said Amit Anand is a middleman. "He was collecting the students on the night of (May) 4th so that he can get the papers on May 5. Nitish Kumar was at the place where the papers were received on May 5," he added.

Citing Amit Anand’s statement, CJI Chandrachud observed that it seems the papers were handed over to students' on the night of May 4 to memorise the answers. "The statement of one of the accused is at variance, as one statement says the leak happened on May 4 night, and the second statement says it was received on WhatsApp on May 5 morning," he added.

The Supreme Court asked the counsel for the parties what had emerged from the declaration of the centre-wise and city-wise NEET-UG results published by the National Testing Agency (NTA). Senior advocate Narender Hooda wanted his submissions related to the statements showing the accused, establishing the time of leak and how it had been systemic. CJI Chandrachud-led Bench allowed Hooda to continue with his submissions.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda, who was appearing on behalf of the NEET-UG aspirants, said the National Testing Agency (NTA) tasked to conduct the gatekeeping exam has admitted to paper leak. He noted that the dissemination of the leaked question paper had happened through WhatsApp. Paper was leaked after they were deposited in the bank and stressed that Centre’s statement that leak happened on the morning of the examination day is not correct. He added the statements of Nitesh Kumar, Amit Anand and Sikander Prasad, accused apprehended in Bihar, and their 161 statements indicate that the leak is much prior to the examination.