Back
NEET-UG Answer Keys Cannot Be Referred to Expert Without Facts Warranting:
In a significant ruling on the limits of judicial intervention in examination disputes, the has dismissed a writ petition challenging the answer keys of the examination. The Court held that a solitary objection from a candidate, rejected by the , does not provide sufficient grounds to refer disputed questions to an expert.
A Division Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh pronounced the judgment on , in the case of .
The Solitary Challenge
The petitioner, a candidate who appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2026, took issue with the answer keys for Question Nos. 60 and 70. He argued that these identical questions had appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Mains in and , where the official answer keys indicated different correct answers. The candidate, who had relied on the JEE answer keys, claimed that his responses were erroneously marked incorrect.
Despite raising this objection before the NTA, the agency examined the challenge and reaffirmed the correctness of the NEET-UG answer keys. Undeterred, the petitioner approached the High Court, seeking a committee to resolve the scientific correctness of the disputed answers.
The Legal Arguments
Petitioner's Counsel – Advocate – acknowledged that his client might be the only candidate to have raised this challenge. However, he argued that this alone should not bar the Court from exercising its . He placed strong reliance on the 's decision in Vanshika Yadav v. (), where the Apex Court had referred a disputed NEET question to experts at the .
Respondents' Counsel – Representing the and the NTA, Advocates and countered that the NTA had already examined the objection and found no error. They invoked the 's ruling in UPPSC v. Rahul Singh (), which establishes a strong . The principle is clear: courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets, and in case of doubt, the benefit goes to the examination body, not the candidate.
When One is Not Enough
The High Court carefully weighed both precedents. It noted that in Vanshika Yadav , the NTA itself had conceded a mistake after multiple representations, leading to the agency awarding marks for two alternative answers. That from the examination body itself warranted expert consultation.
In contrast, the present case involved only one candidate's assertion, which had been examined and rejected by the NTA. No other examinee among the thousands who appeared had raised a similar objection. The Court observed:
“Our, humble interpretation of the declarations of law made by Rahul Singh (supra) and Vanshika Yadav (supra) is that there must be facts before the Court to warrant .”
Key Observations
The judgment underscores that the extraordinary power to seek expert opinion is not triggered by a singular, unsubstantiated claim. The Court stated:
“We have facts before us of one candidate saying two questions were earlier put in Joint Entrance Examination (Mains) of year and . He raised this objection, negated by NTA. No other of several candidates has raised similar objection. The situation does not warrant interference.”
The Bench also rejected the argument that the Court should defer to the candidate's expertise, noting that the petitioner himself was not an expert and had only relied on advice from his father, a retired teacher.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court declined to order any , reinforcing the in academic assessments. The judgment clarifies that the Vanshika Yadav precedent does not open the floodgates for every candidate to demand expert scrutiny; there must be to justify such a course.
This ruling provides much-needed clarity for examination authorities and candidates alike, reaffirming that the lies heavily on the challenger to demonstrate a material error that goes beyond mere disagreement.
