Back
Signature Variations Alone Can't Prove OMR Tampering: Dismisses NEET Aspirants' Plea
The has dismissed three writ petitions filed by NEET-UG 2026 aspirants who challenged their marks and OMR answer sheets, holding that mere dissimilarity between signatures on admit cards and OMR sheets cannot establish tampering in the absence of concrete evidence. Justice Harish Kumar emphasized that judicial interference based solely on individual apprehension would undermine the sanctity of the national examination process.
The Dispute: From High Scores to Drastic Reductions
The petitions, filed under , arose from identical grievances. In one case, Pawani Prabha alleged that her initial score of 622 marks and rank of 2500 under GEN-EWS were reduced to 81 marks and rank 143568 after a ten-day gap. Another petitioner, Nisha Kumari, claimed her result changed within hours from 611 marks to 194. Priya Kumari asserted that her OMR sheet was replaced, showing only 33 questions marked despite her expectation of 560 marks based on the answer key.
The petitioners contended that the had manipulated their records, pointing to discrepancies between their downloaded scorecards and subsequent revised results. They demanded production of original OMR sheets and forensic examination.
Court Orders Production of Original OMR Sheets
On , the court directed the NTA to produce the original OMR sheets in sealed covers. When opened on , the petitioners categorically denied that the sheets belonged to them, claiming the signatures were not theirs and that the number of attempted questions did not match their recollection.
The NTA, represented by , countered that the petitioners' claimed scorecards did not exist in official records and that the QR codes on their downloaded versions did not link to authentic NTA documents. The agency produced a certification from the confirming that only one OMR sheet had been uploaded per candidate on , with no subsequent changes.
Legal Analysis: and
The court examined the original OMR sheets and found they contained roll numbers, test booklet numbers, names, signatures, thumb impressions, parent names, invigilator signatures, and attempted answers. It noted that two of the three petitioners had not challenged the OMR sheets within the stipulated window (), and the third only challenged a single question.
Justice Harish Kumar relied on precedents including the 's decision in and 's ruling in , which established a in favor of official records under .
Addressing the signature variation argument, the court observed:
"It is well founded and relevant to note that the handwriting and signatures of a person are subject to inherent variations. The physical and emotional state of a person at the time of subscribing a signature may also contribute to such variations. Therefore, such variations in signatures, by themselves, cannot constitute a ground to contend that the OMR answer sheets had been tampered with or swapped."
Key Observations: Trust-Based Examination and Evidentiary Trail
The court underscored that a national entrance examination is a "" and that examination authorities must demonstrate robust preservation of physical and electronic records. However, it held that the NTA had satisfied its obligation by producing original records and a verifiable evidentiary trail.
The judgment noted that no ill-will or
were attributed to any examination staff, and that allowing challenges based on mere suspicion would
"open the floodgates to further challenges and question the credibility of the NTA."
Decision and Remedy
Finding no illegality or procedural irregularity, the court dismissed the writ petitions. It observed that —such as the authenticity of signatures and OMR sheets—require adjudication by a competent civil court through examination of witnesses and documentary evidence.
Before parting, Justice Harish Kumar extended best wishes to the petitioners, stating:
"This Court, however, extends the best wishes for the petitioners and hopes that they come out with flying colours in next examination; and/or something more better is awaiting in their life what is already destined for them."
The ruling reinforces the principle that courts will not lightly interfere with evaluation processes in competitive examinations absent convincing evidence of manipulation, preserving the finality and sanctity of the system.
