Menu

VANSHIKA YADAV Vs  UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Case Comment, Publications

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Writ petition (civil)No. 335 of 2024

02 August 2024

[Justice D.Y Chandrachud, CJI, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice J.B. Pardiwala]

Vanshika yadav and others…………………………..(Petitioner)

Union of India and others………………………….(Respondent)

Issue of the case: Whether the entire examination should be annulled due to paper leak and malpractice or whether the sanctity of national eligibility cum entrance test (NEET) 2024 .The petitioners, Vanshika Yadav and others, challenged the examination process, alleging question paper leakage and systemic deficiencies. The petitioners sought a re-test, which was opposed by the respondents, the Union of India and others.

The NEET 2024 question paper issue involved a controversy over a Physics question that had two correct answer options, making it unclear which one was correct. This led to a Supreme Court hearing, where IIT Delhi Committee was asked to share its opinion on the matter. Ultimately, the court decided that only option number 4 was correct, and those who marked it would receive four marks, while those who chose other options would incur negative marking.

In this case honour’able Supreme Court of India addressed the NEET(UG) 2024 paper leak incident and integrity of the Neet 2024 .The National eligibility cum entrance test (Neet-UG) 2024 examination was conducted by National testing agency (NTA) on 05 May 2024 which  results were declared on 04 June 2024.The Supreme Court of India intervened, directing the National Testing Agency (NTA) to re-evaluate the answer keys and re-declare the results.

Background 

The National Testing Agency (NTA) conducted the NEET (UG) 2024 examination across 4,750 centers in 571 cities.Over 2.5 million candidates registered for the examination, making it one of the largest competitive exams in India.

The petitioners, Vanshika Yadav and others, challenged the NEET (UG) 2024 examination process, alleging question paper leakage and systemic deficiencies. Candidates and petitioners have raised concerns about systemic deficiencies, including inadequate infrastructure, technical glitches, and lack of transparency in the examination process. 

First information report was lodged alleging a leak in the NEET(UG) 24 question paper implicating offences under section 407,408 ,409 read with section 120-B of IPC(1860). The the national testing agency awarded compensatory Mark to 1563 candidate due to disruptions at specific centres ,which led to a serves of legal challenges.

After the examination, allegations surfaced about question paper leakage in Hazaribagh in Jharkhand and Patna in Bihar. According to petitioner on 23rd may 2024 the economic offences unit of Bihar police issued a press release in regard to the paper leak .On the other hand communication was issued on 23rd may 2024 by the additional director general of police economic offences unit stating that we have police has not issued and official press release or statement.

Analysis 

  • Particular question involved –

The question which was involved:

As Statement I: “Atoms are electrically neutral as they contain equal numbers of positive and negative charges.” 

And as Statement II: “Atoms of each element are stable and emit their characteristic spectrum.”

Based on the two statements above, choose the correct option from the following:

(a) First is correct but second is incorrect;

(b) First is incorrect but second is correct;

(c) Both first and second statements are correct;

(d) Both statements are incorrect.

Director Rangan Banerjee headed the IIT Delhi committee submitted the report suggesting that option four is the correct answer. Committee cleared that there was only one option which is option four (4). So, the National Testing Agency (NTA) was correct in its answer key which was option four (4). accordance to the report CJI stated option four, which says the “Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect’ is correct”.Committee opined clearly that there was only one option which is option.

The Court went against the decision of the NTA to treat two options as the correct answers for one question. Accepting the expert report submitted by an expert team constituted by IIT-Delhi,

  • Argument presented-

For the Petitioner: 

  1. Allegations surfaced that the question paper had been leaked at some centers, compromising the integrity of the examination.
  2. Reports emerged of technical issues, such as server problems and incorrect question papers, at several examination centers.
  3. sought a re-test, citing the alleged question paper leakage and systemic deficiencies, which they claimed had affected the fairness and transparency of the examination process.
  4. the legality and validity of the NEET (UG) 2024 examination, given the allegations of question paper leakage and systemic deficiencies
  5. claimed that mass cheating and malpractice occurred at several centers, with candidates using unfair means to answer questions.
  6. The petitioners argued that the examination authorities lacked transparency and accountability, making it difficult to detect and prevent malpractices.

For the Respondent :

  1. IIT Madras played a significant role in addressing concerns about the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test.
  2. The NTA denied any leakage of the question paper, stating that the examination was conducted fairly and transparently.
  3. claimed to have implemented robust security measures, including encryption, secure printing, and distribution of question papers.
  4. argued that there was no concrete evidence to support the allegations of mass cheating and malpractice.
  5. the NEET 2024 examination was conducted fairly and transparently, with no evidence of widespread malpractice.
  6.  The government claimed to have taken stringent measures to prevent cheating and malpractice, including the use of technology and increased surveillance.
  • IIT Delhi role:  

The Supreme Court appointed an expert committee from IIT Delhi to investigate the allegations of question paper leakage and systemic deficiencies in the NEET-UG 2024 examination.

The committee, comprising IIT Delhi professors and experts, was tasked with:

1. Examining the allegations. Investigating the allegations of question paper leakage and systemic deficiencies.

2. Evaluating the examination process. Assessing the integrity and fairness of the examination process.The Court went against the decision of the NTA .

  • Judgement analysis: 

The Supreme Court also directed the NTA to file a response to the petition, which alleged that the NEET 2024 result was compromised due to a paper leak and other irregularities. The court scheduled the next hearing for July 8, 2024.

The Court went against the NTA’ decision of the correct answers for one question.Accepting the expert report constituted by IIT-Delhi, headed by Rangan Banerjee, regarding this ambiguous question, the Court stated that both options mutually exclusive

 the cancellation of the NEET-UG 2024 examination, the court stated that when malpractice is systemic and it is impossible to separate untainted candidates. Efforts must be made to minimize the distress and hardship caused to candidates due to examination-related issues. In addition to the legal proceedings, there have been widespread protests and demonstrations by students and stakeholders demanding a fair investigation into the NEET 2024 scam. The issue has also been taken up by political leaders, with some demanding the cancellation of the NEET 2024 exam and a re-conduct of the test.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s judgment on the NEET 2024 scam is still pending, with the next hearing scheduled for July 8, 2024. The court’s decision will be crucial in determining the fate of the students who appeared for the exam and the credibility of the NEET 2024 4 examination process.Court refused to cancel the 2024 NEET UG exam conducted on 5 May 2024 and ruled that NET is not wrong if the body is not reconducting the exam.

The Court expressed that the leak of paper was not “systematic” or widespread so much that it affect largely the “integrity” of the exam.Mechanisms must be put in place to ensure accountability and transparency in the examination process.

Court acknowledged that there was a paper leak in the centers of Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) and Patna (Bihar), but court also mentioned that sufficient material is absent on the record to lead to the conclusion that the results of the exam stand vitiated in its entirety or that there was a systemic breach in the sanctity of the exam.

  • Case law cited : Tanvi Sarwal vs. CBSE (2015) 6 SCC 573 

Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate service selection board (2021) 2 SCR 1073 

1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241: This landmark case laid down the principles of fairness and transparency in examinations.

2. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481: This case dealt with the issue of fairness and transparency in entrance examinations.

3. Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697: This case reiterated the importance of fairness and transparency in examinations.

4. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537: This case dealt with the issue of malpractices in examinations and the need for effective measures to prevent them.

5. Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2006) 10 SCC 116: This case highlighted the importance of ensuring the integrity and fairness of examinations.

6. Tanvi Sarwal vs. CBSE (2015) 6 SCC 573 

7. Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate service selection board (2021) 2 SCR 1073 

These case laws may have been cited or referred to in the NEET scam 2024 case to emphasize the importance of fairness, transparency, and integrity in examinations.

Conclusion – The court emphasized the need for transparency and fairness in the examination process. It also highlighted the importance of taking swift action to address any irregularities that may occur during the examination.

Regarding the cancellation of the NEET-UG 2024 examination, the court stated that such a decision should only be taken when malpractice is systemic and it is impossible to separate untainted candidates.The case highlights the need for systemic reforms in the examination process to prevent such incidents in the future.There is a need to improve the examination infrastructure.We believe that it is essential to ensure that the examination process is fair,transparent and free from any malpractices. The rights of candidates, including their right to a fair examination, must be protected and upheld.: The welfare and interests of candidates must be prioritized in the examination process.

In addition to the legal proceedings, there have been widespread protests and demonstrations by students and stakeholders demanding a fair investigation into the NEET 2024 scam. The issue has also been taken up by political leaders, with some demanding the cancellation of the NEET 2024 exam and a re-conduct of the test.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s judgment on the NEET 2024 scam is still pending, with the next hearing scheduled for July 8, 2024. The court’s decision will be crucial in determining the fate of the students who appeared for the exam and the credibility of the NEET 2024 4 examination process.

References :- 

By Deepika Tumram 

BAllB 2nd year 

Government New law college indore Madhya Pradesh