Back
Bombay High Court Orders To Produce Answer Sheets In NEET Dispute
The , sitting at the , has intervened in a mounting controversy surrounding the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2026 results. In a hearing held on , a comprising Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde issued a directive to the (NTA) to produce the original answer sheets of three petitioners who alleged severe discrepancies in their final scores.
Allegations of Scoring Inconsistencies
The petitions, led by Hricha Prafull Deshpande, along with Soham Nitin Gavate and Atharva Jagtap, highlight a troubling pattern of inconsistency in the evaluation process. According to the court filings, petitioner Deshpande participated in the re-NEET(UG) examination on . Initially, when accessing her OMR sheet via the official NTA portal on July 15, she calculated a score of at least 619 marks. However, later that same evening, she reportedly received an email from the NTA containing a different OMR sheet, assigning her a score of only 280 marks.
The petitioners argue that they raised prompt grievances with the NTA upon noticing these discrepancies. Despite these warnings, the NTA moved forward to publish the final results on , without addressing the alleged data mismatches.
Judicial Intervention
Counsel for the petitioners emphasized the immense mental, psychological, and physical stress caused by the ongoing administrative uncertainty. In her plea, Deshpande asserted,
"The
is in her favour because the Respondents lose nothing by producing the original OMR and preserving records, whereas the Petitioner will suffer irreversible educational prejudice if counselling proceeds solely on the basis of the disputed result."
The petitioners argue that the lack of transparency in the evaluation process violates the principles of fairness and inherent under .
Key Observations
The bench took a serious view of the matter, categorizing it under the urgent list to prevent potential harm to the students’ academic futures. Key points noted during the proceedings include:
-
Direction to Produce Records:
"Respondents are directed to produce the petitioners’ answer sheets on the next date."
-
Urgent Categorization:
The court formally ordered the Registry to
"List the matters in urgent category,"
signaling the gravity of the potential impact on medical admissions. - Interim Procedural Steps: The bench issued formal notices to the and the NTA, returnable by , ensuring that the government is held accountable for the integrity of the examination data.
Implications for Future Proceedings
The decision marks a critical turning point for the NEET-UG examination process, as the court has signaled that it will not brush aside procedural complaints that threaten student rights. By ordering the production of physical evidence, the High Court has ensured that the NTA must substantiate its digital evaluation records. The outcome of the hearing scheduled for , will likely set a key for how educational authorities manage challenges to computer-based examination data moving forward.
