NEET-UG Paper Leak: SC Orders NTA to Release Centre-wise, State-wise Result On Website By Saturday

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said one of the gang members in Hazaribagh(Jharkhand) sent the paper via WhatsApp. The gang wanted to avoid widespread leaks and also not allow students to take photographs. They had asked the students to leave the phones switched outside the room where they had shared the paper. It was the strategy, the gang planned to prevent the exam from being cancelled and to contain it from becoming a broad leak. "Does somebody pay Rs 75 lakhs for 45 minutes?" the CJI wondered.

The CJI said the bench was worried about how much time they(Paper Leak gang) had between the breach of the paper and the main exam. "We are worried about how much was the period between the breach of the paper and the main exam," says CJI.

The CJI queried the petitioners, if they have any material to indicate that the Patna model of paper leak was replicated elsewhere. Hooda cited the Godhra incident where people from various states had congregated. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said none from the Godhra incident are getting admission. The CJI concurred with Mehta as the module did not go through, it was localised and those involved were arrested.

Hooda maintained that the leaked answers of the NEET-UG question paper had reached Godhra. The CJI pointed out the problem is only with Hazaribagh.

"Can we cancel the entire examination?" he asked the petitioners. Hooda said the conspiracy for the paper leak was hatched one month before the exam.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there were seven solvers identified after the question paper was stolen and they solved the paper quickly. The CJI interrupted and wanted to know as it sounded far-fetched to hear that the paper was solved within 45 minutes. Mehta said the solvers divided the question paper among themselves and solved it quickly. He said the students got 2 hours to memorise the answers. He added that the parents had given post-dated cheques to the gang.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court how the CBI has already probed the entire chain, including printers, centres, GPS tracking, and digital lockers. "There is a 7-layer safety system. There are two printing presses, which printed the question papers and distributed the printed question papers between April 24-28 to various cities," he said. When the CJI observed that the leak had taken place on May 5 morning. He said it cannot be called a leak but a mere "breach" and the bench obliged. He said there are digital footprints, which the CBI was poring over and has investigated. The investigation, he said, concluded that there was no tampering enroute.

During the course of the hearing, the Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta why the National Testing Agency was engaging a private courier, when it is making so much money. The CJI queried how much is the examination fee collected by the agency. After referring to the NTA officials present, Mehta gave the fee break up, saying that they charge Rs. 1700 for general category and Rs 1600 for OBC/EWS and Rs 1000 for SC/ST/PwD. He presented that the agency would collect nearly Rs 400 cr towards the fee and would spend about Rs 300 cr. "If that is the case, then why would you engage a private courier?" Chandrachud asked.

Supreme Court has directed NTA to publish the results of NEET-UG 24 exam on their website city-wise and centre-wise by Saturday (July 20) noon. The apex court has asked NTA to mask the identity of the candidates while publishing the results. While dictating the order, the CJI said the petitioners have submitted that it would be appropriate if the results of the NEET-UG 24 exams were published on the website centre-wise to bring transparency. Read More...

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the leak was not carried out to bring disrepute on the NEET-UG examination but for Money. "The idea of somebody leaking the paper was not to bring disrepute to the NEET-UG exam, but it would be done for money, and somebody was doing it to make money, which is evident now," the CJI said. "The mass leakage requires contacts and a network to connect to all such key contacts in different cities etc.," he added.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda argued that there was a systemic failure. He said the transport of the question paper was compromised. The question papers were transported into an e-rickshaw. The packet containing question papers remained with a private company for 6 days. The principal of Hazaribagh school has been arrested in connection with the paper leak. The paper was leaked on May 3 and a chat on Telegram showed that the paper was sold. Hooda continued to advance his arguments on these lines.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda submitted that the IIT Madras report prepared by its Director Prof V Kamakoti is conflicting. The report had maintained that there was no malpractice, contrary to the controversy. Referring to the report, he said it would not be able to detect the insertion of candidates who used unfair means due to the volume of the data. He pointed out that the report from the premier tech institute was not able to establish the fact that there was any leak or malpractice. Hooda also reiterated his demand not to rely on the report from the IIT-Madras to conclude that there were no malpractices.

The Supreme Court bench asked the National Testing Agency how it allowed 15,000 new registrations in contrast to the Rajasthan High Court order. The specific direction from the HC was to open up the registration window only for one particular candidate. NTA said there were 15,000 "corrections" carried out when the window opened as suggested.

The Court also wanted to know how many of these 15,000 changed their centres and how long that window was open.

According to the NTA, the centre allotment happens two or three days before the exam day. Nobody would be able to know which centre was being allocated to them until then. They can choose their cities, though. The same can be changed when there is a correction window, the agency said. Read More...

Senior advocate Narendar Hooda said the IIT Madras Director Prof. V Kamakoti was a member of the National Testing Agency (NTA). Kamkoti had prepared the report which was filed as part of the counter by the Centre on behalf of the NTA.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had a quick word with the IIT Madras Director, who was physically present in the hearing. He later clarified that Kamakoti was not a member of the National Testing Agency (NTA). Kamakoti was never a member of the NTA but has nominated another professor as an ex-officio member.

The petitioners’ counsel senior advocate Narendar Hooda dismissed the IIT Madras report, giving clean chit to the exam and showing the distribution of scores were even. He argued that there were irregularities when the exam was conducted. He urged the court not to rely on the IIT Madras report. According to Hooda, the IIT Madras should have analysed the 1 lakh eight thousand candidates who are eligible for admissions. The analysis was done on the entire set of 23 lakh students’ who appeared in the examination and cannot be relied upon, he noted.

The apex court was told there were 131 students who do not fall within the set of petitioners who want a re-test. There were also 254 students who are part of the 1 lakh eight thousand who are eligible to join the MBBS program, opposing the re-test.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said 131 students outside the 108,000 seat limit are requesting a re-examination, while 254 students within the limit oppose it. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said that some of the students who are within the 108,000 also seek government seats.

The counsel representing the Centre. The court had asked the petitioners on the number of students who were seeking the cancellation of the examination and demanding a re-test.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said one of the gang members in Hazaribagh(Jharkhand) sent the paper via WhatsApp. The gang wanted to avoid widespread leaks and also not allow students to take photographs. They had asked the students to leave the phones switched outside the room where they had shared the paper. It was the strategy, the gang planned to prevent the exam from being cancelled and to contain it from becoming a broad leak. "Does somebody pay Rs 75 lakhs for 45 minutes?" the CJI wondered.

The CJI said the bench was worried about how much time they(Paper Leak gang) had between the breach of the paper and the main exam. "We are worried about how much was the period between the breach of the paper and the main exam," says CJI.

The CJI queried the petitioners, if they have any material to indicate that the Patna model of paper leak was replicated elsewhere. Hooda cited the Godhra incident where people from various states had congregated. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said none from the Godhra incident are getting admission. The CJI concurred with Mehta as the module did not go through, it was localised and those involved were arrested.

Hooda maintained that the leaked answers of the NEET-UG question paper had reached Godhra. The CJI pointed out the problem is only with Hazaribagh.

"Can we cancel the entire examination?" he asked the petitioners. Hooda said the conspiracy for the paper leak was hatched one month before the exam.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there were seven solvers identified after the question paper was stolen and they solved the paper quickly. The CJI interrupted and wanted to know as it sounded far-fetched to hear that the paper was solved within 45 minutes. Mehta said the solvers divided the question paper among themselves and solved it quickly. He said the students got 2 hours to memorise the answers. He added that the parents had given post-dated cheques to the gang.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court how the CBI has already probed the entire chain, including printers, centres, GPS tracking, and digital lockers. "There is a 7-layer safety system. There are two printing presses, which printed the question papers and distributed the printed question papers between April 24-28 to various cities," he said. When the CJI observed that the leak had taken place on May 5 morning. He said it cannot be called a leak but a mere "breach" and the bench obliged. He said there are digital footprints, which the CBI was poring over and has investigated. The investigation, he said, concluded that there was no tampering enroute.

During the course of the hearing, the Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta why the National Testing Agency was engaging a private courier, when it is making so much money. The CJI queried how much is the examination fee collected by the agency. After referring to the NTA officials present, Mehta gave the fee break up, saying that they charge Rs. 1700 for general category and Rs 1600 for OBC/EWS and Rs 1000 for SC/ST/PwD. He presented that the agency would collect nearly Rs 400 cr towards the fee and would spend about Rs 300 cr. "If that is the case, then why would you engage a private courier?" Chandrachud asked.

Supreme Court has directed NTA to publish the results of NEET-UG 24 exam on their website city-wise and centre-wise by Saturday (July 20) noon. The apex court has asked NTA to mask the identity of the candidates while publishing the results. While dictating the order, the CJI said the petitioners have submitted that it would be appropriate if the results of the NEET-UG 24 exams were published on the website centre-wise to bring transparency. Read More...

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the leak was not carried out to bring disrepute on the NEET-UG examination but for Money. "The idea of somebody leaking the paper was not to bring disrepute to the NEET-UG exam, but it would be done for money, and somebody was doing it to make money, which is evident now," the CJI said. "The mass leakage requires contacts and a network to connect to all such key contacts in different cities etc.," he added.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda argued that there was a systemic failure. He said the transport of the question paper was compromised. The question papers were transported into an e-rickshaw. The packet containing question papers remained with a private company for 6 days. The principal of Hazaribagh school has been arrested in connection with the paper leak. The paper was leaked on May 3 and a chat on Telegram showed that the paper was sold. Hooda continued to advance his arguments on these lines.

Senior advocate Narender Hooda submitted that the IIT Madras report prepared by its Director Prof V Kamakoti is conflicting. The report had maintained that there was no malpractice, contrary to the controversy. Referring to the report, he said it would not be able to detect the insertion of candidates who used unfair means due to the volume of the data. He pointed out that the report from the premier tech institute was not able to establish the fact that there was any leak or malpractice. Hooda also reiterated his demand not to rely on the report from the IIT-Madras to conclude that there were no malpractices.

The Supreme Court bench asked the National Testing Agency how it allowed 15,000 new registrations in contrast to the Rajasthan High Court order. The specific direction from the HC was to open up the registration window only for one particular candidate. NTA said there were 15,000 "corrections" carried out when the window opened as suggested.

The Court also wanted to know how many of these 15,000 changed their centres and how long that window was open.

According to the NTA, the centre allotment happens two or three days before the exam day. Nobody would be able to know which centre was being allocated to them until then. They can choose their cities, though. The same can be changed when there is a correction window, the agency said. Read More...

Senior advocate Narendar Hooda said the IIT Madras Director Prof. V Kamakoti was a member of the National Testing Agency (NTA). Kamkoti had prepared the report which was filed as part of the counter by the Centre on behalf of the NTA.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had a quick word with the IIT Madras Director, who was physically present in the hearing. He later clarified that Kamakoti was not a member of the National Testing Agency (NTA). Kamakoti was never a member of the NTA but has nominated another professor as an ex-officio member.

The petitioners’ counsel senior advocate Narendar Hooda dismissed the IIT Madras report, giving clean chit to the exam and showing the distribution of scores were even. He argued that there were irregularities when the exam was conducted. He urged the court not to rely on the IIT Madras report. According to Hooda, the IIT Madras should have analysed the 1 lakh eight thousand candidates who are eligible for admissions. The analysis was done on the entire set of 23 lakh students’ who appeared in the examination and cannot be relied upon, he noted.

The apex court was told there were 131 students who do not fall within the set of petitioners who want a re-test. There were also 254 students who are part of the 1 lakh eight thousand who are eligible to join the MBBS program, opposing the re-test.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said 131 students outside the 108,000 seat limit are requesting a re-examination, while 254 students within the limit oppose it. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said that some of the students who are within the 108,000 also seek government seats.

The counsel representing the Centre. The court had asked the petitioners on the number of students who were seeking the cancellation of the examination and demanding a re-test.