Share
NEW DELHI — The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notices in response to four new petitions challenging the award of grace marks and alleging a paper leak in the NEET (UG) Examination held on May 5.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Vacation Bench sought responses from the National Testing Agency (NTA) on the petitions.
On the petitions filed by candidates Adarsh Raj Gupta, Keya Azad, Mohammed Florez, and Anavadya V., Solicitor General (SG), Tushar Mehta, informed the court that multiple writ petitions regarding the examination have been filed in various courts, including the Supreme Court.
He stated that the issues raised in these petitions broadly fall into three categories: The awarding of compensatory or grace marks, anomalies in certain questions, and the alleged paper leak.
SG Tushar Mehta further noted that the NTA is in the process of filing a transfer plea before the Supreme Court to consolidate all related petitions for a unified hearing.
In light of this, the Delhi High Court issued notices on the fresh petitions and scheduled them for hearing before the Roster Bench on July 5.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court also issued a notice on a separate plea seeking the cancellation of the NEET (UG) examination due to allegations of a paper leak, with a hearing scheduled for July 8.
Last week, a 17-year-old moved the High Court challenging the NTA over alleged inconsistencies in the NEET (UG) 2024 examination.
The petition, filed by the student's mother on her behalf, contests the accuracy of the answer key for the exam conducted.
The issue revolves around Question No. 29 in Test Booklet Code R5, where the final answer key, released on June 3, reportedly listed two correct answers.
This contradicts the instructions given in the examination booklet, which clearly stated that only one option could be correct for each multiple-choice question in Section A.
The petition highlights that the provisional answer key was published by the NTA on May 30 with a window for students to raise objections until May 31.
Despite this, the final answer key considered both options 2 and 4 as correct for the disputed question.
This discrepancy has significant implications for the examinees, it stressed.
The petitioner argues that the NTA's decision to award marks to students who selected either of the two options unfairly benefits those who guessed or inadvertently marked one of the correct answers.
This, the petition claims, discriminates against candidates who followed the instructions and refrained from marking an answer due to the ambiguity.
The petitioner further contends that this inconsistency has resulted in arbitrary and unfair grace marks, adversely affecting the ranks of students who did not benefit from this decision.
According to the petition, such arbitrary awarding of marks can cause a rank difference of approximately 20,000 places, potentially impacting the future prospects of many candidates.
Given these grievances, the petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the High Court's intervention to address the alleged violations and ensure a fair resolution for all affected candidates.
The petitioner seeks a reassessment of the disputed question and a revision of the results to ensure equity and fairness in the examination process.
The High Court has sought NTA’s stand on the matter.