Back
Orders NTA to Declare NEET Results of Two Candidates Named as Witnesses
In a significant interim relief, the has directed the to declare the withheld NEET UG 2026 results of two candidates who were cited as witnesses—not accused—by the in the alleged paper leak case. Justice Jasmeet Singh, presiding over the writ petition, also permitted the candidates to participate in the ongoing medical counselling rounds, marking a crucial victory for students caught in the procedural crosshairs of a high-profile investigation.
Witnesses, Not Accused: The Court's Foundational Observation
The case revolves around Aditya Vinod Swami and another candidate who appeared for NEET UG on . Following widespread reports of a question paper leak, the examination was cancelled, and a re-examination (Re-NEET) was conducted. The CBI investigated the leak and filed a charge-sheet in which the petitioners were named as witnesses, not accused. Despite this, the NTA issued on , and withheld their Re-NEET results.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a to compel the NTA to declare their results and allow them to participate in counselling. They argued that being treated as suspects without any criminal culpability established caused irreparable harm to their academic futures.
NTA and CBI’s Stance: Allegations vs. Evidence
The NTA, represented by , informed the court that the CBI had, via a letter dated , flagged several candidates—including the petitioners—for allegedly receiving or sharing the leaked question paper. The CBI’s Standing Counsel, , went further, submitting that the petitioners had paid money to obtain the paper and thus possessed the necessary .
However, the court zeroed in on a critical inconsistency: while the CBI asserted culpability, it had deliberately chosen not to arraign the petitioners as accused. Instead, they were listed as witnesses in the charge-sheet—a fact that weighed heavily in the court’s reasoning.
“Allegations Yet to Be Tested”: Legal Analysis and Precedent
Justice Jasmeet Singh meticulously examined the charge-sheet’s status, noting that it was yet to be tested in a trial. The court observed:
“The petitioners have not been arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI and have, instead, been cited as witnesses. At this stage, therefore, the petitioners cannot be treated as persons against whom criminal culpability has been established or as having been found guilty of any illegality.”
The court further held that the submissions from the CBI were based on findings within the charge-sheet, which required evidentiary proof. Withholding results at this nascent stage of the petitioners’ academic careers would cause “serious prejudice,” the judge added.
The bench applied the established legal principle that a case exists when the favors the applicant and is likely. Here, the loss of an academic year or the opportunity to participate in counselling could not be compensated monetarily.
Court’s Directive: Results Within 24 Hours
In a decisive order dated , the court directed the NTA to declare the petitioners’ results within 24 hours of the order’s upload. Based on those results, the candidates are to be permitted to participate in further counselling rounds, subject to meeting all applicable eligibility criteria. For candidates whose results were not yet declared, the court allowed offline application.
However, the court clarified that this order does not preclude the respondents from taking lawful action against the petitioners if the allegations are eventually established. The main petition has been listed for , with the NTA directed to file its counter within four weeks.
Implications and Forward Path
The decision underscores a key safeguard in India’s legal framework: mere allegations, untested by trial, cannot be used to deprive students of fundamental academic opportunities. The ruling provides a template for other candidates in similar predicaments, especially in mass-examination leaks where investigative agencies often cite students as witnesses while administrative bodies impose sanctions.
As the case awaits final adjudication, the immediate relief granted by the ensures that these two candidates will not lose an entire academic year—a consequence the court deemed “irreparable.”
