Chhattisgarh High Court Rules Against NEET Aspirant Alleging OMR Sheet Tampering Without Substantive Evidence

A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a NEET (National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test) 2026 aspirant, Aryan Agrawal, who alleged that his OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) sheet had been tampered with. The Court underscored that legal intervention in national examination processes requires substantive proof rather than mere conjecture.

Case Background

The petitioner, a medical aspirant, appeared for the NEET (UG)-2026 examination after it was rescheduled. Upon receiving the scanned copy of his OMR sheet, the candidate discovered discrepancies between the answers he recalled marking and the responses captured on the digital record. He alleged that while his personal details and signatures were consistent, the marked options in the uploaded OMR sheet were incorrect, resulting in a significantly lower score of 200 marks compared to his anticipated 600-plus.

Arguments Presented

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the scanned OMR sheet showed ink marks inconsistent with his usual technique, suggesting unauthorized alteration. The petitioner asserted that he had exhausted informal channels through emails but had been denied access to the original physical OMR sheet.

Conversely, the respondents, represented by the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), contended that the petition was premature. They argued that the candidate bypassed the designated Grievance Redressal Forum, a mandatory administrative mechanism provided for addressing exam-related complaints. Furthermore, they maintained that the examination process is standardized and transparent, leaving no room for arbitrary tampering.

Legal Analysis

The Court noted that the petitioner’s case relied entirely on a self-prepared comparison chart. Referencing its previous judgment in Ku. Amisha Gupta v. Union of India , the High Court held that courts should not interfere with examination evaluations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of cogent, independent evidence. The Bench emphasized that the NEET examination, conducted on a national scale, must maintain its sanctity, and judicial interference based on subjective apprehension would compromise the integrity of the entire system.

Key Observations

Highlighting the gravity of the allegations, the Court observed:

  • "Serious allegations involving tampering of official examination records cannot be accepted merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture or subjective belief, particularly when no substantive evidence has been placed before the Court."
  • "The NEET (UG) Examination is conducted on a national scale through a standardized and transparent process. Judicial interference with the evaluation process, based solely on an individual's apprehension unsupported by convincing evidence, would adversely affect the certainty, sanctity and finality of the examination system."
  • "The petitioner has failed to establish any arbitrariness , illegality , mala fides or procedural irregularity on the part of the respondent authorities in the evaluation of his NEET (UG)-2026 examination."

Court's Decision

Finding no merit in the claims of manipulation, the High Court dismissed the petition. By declining to order the production of the original OMR sheet or a re-evaluation, the Court reinforced the principle that candidates must strictly adhere to established institutional grievance procedures before seeking judicial review. The dismissal stands as a firm reminder that constitutional courts will not entertain challenges to standardized testing outcomes that lack concrete evidentiary support.