VANSHIKA YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

          [2024] 7 S.C.R. 957 : 2024 INSC 553

                     Vanshika Yadav
                             v.
                 Union of India and Others
             (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of 2024)
                           23 July 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala
              and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

                     Issue for Consideration
The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) 2024 examination
was conducted by the National Testing Agency. The petitioners
assert that a direction should be issued for convening a re-test on
the ground that (i) there was a leakage of the question paper; and
(ii) there are systemic deficiencies in the modalities envisaged for
the conduct of the examination.

                           Headnotes†
Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Leakage of the question paper –
Systemic deficiencies:
Held: The Court proceeded to record the essential conclusions
in the following terms: (i) The fact that a leak of the NEET (UG)
2024 paper took place at Hazaribagh in the State of Jharkhand
and at Patna in the State of Bihar is not in dispute; (ii) The CBI
has indicated that at the present stage, the material which has
emerged during the course of the investigation would indicate
that about 155 students drawn from the examination centres at
Hazaribagh and Patna appear to be the beneficiaries of the fraud;
(iii) Since the investigation by the CBI has not attained finality at
present point of time, this Court had in its previous order required
the Union Government to indicate whether trends in regard to the
existence of abnormalities can be deduced through data analytics
on the basis of the results emanating from 4,750 centres situated
in 571 cities – Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the Union
Government has produced a report of IIT, Madras – At this stage,
in order to obviate any controversy, the Court has independently
scrutinized the data which has been placed on the record by the
NTA; (iv) At the present stage, there is an absence of material on
the record to lead to the conclusion that the entire result of the
958                                                                [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       examination stands vitiated or that there was a systemic breach
       in the sanctity of the examination; (v) Added to the absence of
       conclusive material on the record at the present stage, the data
       which has been produced on the record city-wise and centre-wise
       and the comparison of data for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024 are
       not indicative of a systemic leak of the question paper impacting the
       sanctity of the examination; (vi) In arriving at the ultimate conclusion,
       the Court is guided by the well-settled test of whether it is possible
       to segregate tainted students from those whose candidature does
       not suffer from any taint – If the investigation reveals the involvement
       of an increased number of beneficiaries over and above those who
       are suspects at the present stage, action shall be pursued against
       every student found to be involved in wrong doing at any stage,
       notwithstanding the completion of the counselling process; (vii)
       Directing a fresh NEET (UG) to be conducted for the present year
       would be replete with serious consequences for over two million
       students who have appeared in the examination – Adopting such a
       course of action would, in particular, (i) lead to a disruption of the
       admission schedule; (ii) lead to cascading effects on the course of
       medical education; (iii) impact the availability of qualified medical
       professionals in the future; and (iv) cause a serious element of
       disadvantage to students belonging to marginalized communities
       and weaker sections for whom reservation has been made in the
       allocation of seats – Ordering the cancellation of the entire NEET
       (UG) 2024 examination is not justified on the application of the
       settled tests which have been propounded in the decisions of this
       Court or on the basis of the data and material available on the
       record. [Paras 11 and 12]
       Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
       Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Leakage of the question paper –
       Systemic deficiencies – Constitution of a seven-member Expert
       Committee by the Union Government:
       Held: The Union Government has constituted a seven-member
       Expert Committee – The Committee will abide by such further
       directions as may be issued by this Court in its final judgment and
       order in regard to the areas which should be enquired into by it
       so as to ensure that (i) the process of conducting the NEET (UG)
       and other examinations falling within the remit of the NTA is duly
       strengthened; and (ii) the instances which came to light during the
       course of the present year are not repeated in the future. [Para 23]
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                            959

              Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others


                              Case Law Cited
     Tanvi Sarwal v. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others
     [2015] 7 SCR 780 : (2015) 6 SCC 573; Sachin Kumar and Others
     v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others
     [2021] 2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631 – referred to.

                             List of Keywords
     Education; Medical Education; Examination; Sanctity of the
     examination; National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) 2024
     examination; Leakage of the question paper; Systemic deficiencies;
     Course of investigation; Existence of abnormalities; Data analytics;
     Counselling process; Expert Committee.

                            Case Arising From

     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of 2024
     (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
     With
     Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 362, 369, 368, 431, 379, 377, 376, 375, 425,
     401, 415, 407, 412, 383, 419, 406, 403, 398, 414, 423, 404, 427, 441,
     420, 430, 446, 410, 382, 381, 394, 384, 389, 417, 393 and 435 of
     2024, Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 28729 of 2024, Writ Petition (Civil)
     Nos. 1741, 449 and 392 of 2024, Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 1659,
     1597, 1600, 1602, 1596, 1808, 1741, 1737, 1735 and 1730 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties

     Tushar Mehta, SG, Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Narender Hooda,
     Sanjay R. Hegde, Naresh Kaushik, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya,
     Santosh Paul, Amit Anand Tiwari, Naresh Kaushik, P. Wilson,
     Sudhanshu Choudhari, P.V. Dinesh, Thomas P Joseph, A Hariprasad,
     Sr. Advs., Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Anurag Kulharia,
     Vaibhav Yadav, Dr. Navya Jannu, Sunny Kadiyan, Mrs. Parul Dagar,
     Rajesh Sheoran, Anas Chaudhary, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Hemendra
     Singh Kashyap, Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Shaurya Lamba, Shiv Bhatnagar,
     Aditya Mishra, Ashish Kumar Pandey, Yuvraj Nandal, Ms. Manisha
     Sharma, Gyan Prakash, Ms. Keerti Singh, Ms. Divya Kumari Singh,
     Ms. Tannu, Vedant Pardhan, Mathews J. Nedumpara, Ms. Usha
     Nandini V., Ms. Maria Nedumpara, Ms. Hemali Kurne, Ms. Rohini
960                                                        [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Amin, Shameem Fayiz, Shwetank Sailakwal, Tanmaya Agarwal, Mrs.
       Aditi Agarwal, Deepak Panjwani, Anas Tanwir, Ebad Ur Rahman,
       Mayank Suryan, Zaid Raza, Shahrukh Ali, Ankit Tiwari, Tanay Hegde,
       Ms. Riya Sharma, Prateek Chandra, Durgesh Shukla, Mohammad
       Asif Abbas, Raghav Gupta, Aayushman Jauhari, Ms. Aparna Jauhari,
       Aakarsh Mishra, Aslam Ahmed Jamal, Rohit Jain, Ms. Shabiesta
       Nabi, Ms. Kheyali Singh, Abhishek Dwivedi, Arun Kumar Arunachal,
       Tasleem Arif, Satyapal Singh, Raees Ahmad, Harilal S, Rahat Khan
       Afridi, Ms. Latika Rungta Bajaj, Zeeshan Haider, Haris Beeran, Azhar
       Assees, Anand B. Menon, Ms. Maneesha Sunilkumar, Radha Shyam
       Jena, Kunal Cheema, Raghav Deshpande, Shubham Chandankhede,
       S.D. Singh, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Ms. Shweta Sinha, Ram Kripal Singh,
       Ms. Meenu Singh, Siddharth Singh, Ashish Pandey, Prateek Rai,
       Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Shubham Saxena, Dr. Daksha Sharma, Ms.
       Aarti Sharma, Anmol Goyal, Anshuman Singh Khangarot, Vardhman
       Kaushik, Anand Singh, Mayank Sharma, Sanjana Mehrotra, Nishant
       Gautam, Dhruv Joshi, Vinay Kauhsik, Ajay Kanojiya, Rudra Rout,
       Vinay Kaushik, Ms. Shikha John, Shubham Dwivedi, Ms. Charu
       Mathur, Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Anukrit Gupta, Mekala Ganesh Kumar
       Reddy, Anilendra Pandey, C.P. Singh, Manoj Kumar, Rajeev Kumar
       Ranjan, Ms. Priya Kashyap, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Mrs. Neetu Verma,
       Satendra Singh, Himanshu Chauhan, Nishesh Sharma, Shivam
       Singh, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Rajendra Kumar Singh, Parth Sarathi,
       Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ms. Soumya Gulati,
       Sanjay Kumar Visen, Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Dr. Arstu Upadhyay,
       Baldev Pathania, Eshu Aggarwal, Ms. Manshi Ahuja, Ms. Mrinalini
       Dayal, Ms. Anu Batra, Ms. Resha Panwar, Sudhir Naagar, Shamim
       Ahammed, Supratik Sarkar, Arnab Sinha, Arko Maity, Saurav Gupta,
       Alakh Alok Srivastava, Rishabh Bafna, Aditya Singh, Kamal Kishor,
       Aditya Kumar, Vaseem, Tanmay Yadav, Sriharsh Nahush Bundela,
       Vedant Mishra, B.K. Pal, Chinmoy Khaladkar, Suhaas Ratna Joshi,
       Mahendra Singh Rawat, Ms. Mallika Joshi, P. Ramesh, Raghav
       Sabharwal, Dr. Avinash Poddar, Ms. Anchal Poddar, Gaurav Gupta,
       Ms. Diva Singh, Ms. Rudrani Mishra, Ms. Samiksha Goswami,
       Awadhesh Sharma, Devendra Singh, Hiren Trivedi, Anuj Aggarwal,
       Shubhanshu Gupta, Chaitanya, Kartik Pant, Anand Kumar Singh, Ms.
       A Sumathi, Ms. Ila Shikhar Sheel, Sumeer Sodhi, Aman Nandarjog,
       Ujjwal Malhotra, Feroz Shaikh, Aamir Naseem, Inam Ahmad Khan,
       Danish Zubair Khan, Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, Aditya Shanker Pandey,
       Atul Kumar, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Shaurya Sahay, Himanshu Sehrawat,
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                      961

              Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others


     Ms. Tanvi Anand, Vishal Ranjan, Shaju Francis, Ms. Meenakshi Kalra,
     S N Kalra, Kamal, Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Chandan Kumar Singh, Ms.
     Tusharika Sharma, A. Karthik, Ms. Abiha Zaidi, Ms. Suriti Chowdhary,
     Anuj Bhave, Pritam Raman Giriya, Ms. Mithu Jain, Shashwat Jaiswal,
     Ravi Kumar, Divakar Kumar, Adutiya Veer, Karunakar Mahalik,
     Varun Kumar, Manoranjan Mishra, Gournga Biswal, Mrs. Monika,
     Sarbendra Kumar, Ms. Isha Singh, Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Narendra
     Mishra, Vinod Kumar Dwivedi, Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Amarjeet
     Sahani, Parvinder, Sachin Kumar Srivastava, Amrish Kumar, K.
     Parmeshwar, Kanu Agrawal, Mayank Pandey, Udai Khanna, Rajat
     Nair, Madhav Sinhal, Kanu Aggarwal, Ajay Kanojia, Ajay Kanojya,
     Ajay Kanoiya, Ms. Ananya Sharma, Subham Diwedi, Varun Chugh,
     Bhuvan Kapoor, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Samarpit Gupta, Ivan,
     Pranjul Chopra, Vivek Mathur, Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Mrs.
     Abhinandini Sharma, Saurabh Rajpal, Ms. Shalini Singh, Aaditya
     Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav
     Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Ms.
     Astha Sharma, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Kartikeya Rastogi, Akshay
     Girish Ringe, Sabarish Subramanian, C. Kranthi Kumar, Vishnu
     Unnikrishnan, Apoorv Malhotra, Naman Dwivedi, Lokesh Krishnan,
     Sarathraj B, Danish Saifi, Manish Kumar, Ms. Meera Kaura, Tejas
     Patel, Ms. Tanushree Bhalla, Ms. Muskaan Gandhi, Ms. Ritika Saini,
     Aditya Kumar Tripathi, Himanshu Rai, Vikash Vadit, Piyush Goel,
     Sunpreet Bawa, Tarun Bajaj, Pawan Aneja, Jugul Kishor Gupta, Raj
     Narayan Singh, Dilip Kumar, Ms. Babila K.K., Santosh Kumar Jha,
     Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms. Sangeet Joshi, Shantanu Sharma,
     R.D. Rathore, Ms. Deeksha Gaur, Sagar Pahune Patil, Ms. Pranjal
     Chapalgaonkar, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Mrs. Sangeeta S. Pahune
     Patil, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Kushagra Pandey, Avinash Tripathi,
     Mukesh Kumar, Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Ankit Singh, Sushant, Vijay
     Rajput, Yashish Chandra, Ms. Neha Rai, Madhup Kumar Tiwari,
     Rajnish Kumar Singh, Abhilash M.R., Sayooj Mohandas, Tom
     Jospeh, Gautam Kumar Laha, Arun Kumar, Ms. Sandra Jaison, M/s.
     M.R. Law Associates, Dr. Gaurav Gupta, Ashwin Kumar Nair, Ritik
     Gupta, Sunil Gupta, Mrs. Sheetal Gupta, Puneet Khanna, Mayank
     Aggarwal, Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Vineet Yadav, Amir Yadav, Ms.
     Anna Oommen, Ms. Anne Mathew, Sanchit Garga, Namit Saxena,
     Divik Mathur, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Bijo Mathew Joy, Ms. Gifty
     Marium Joseph, Dinny Thomas, Ms. Swathi H Prasad, Ms. Anzu K
     Varkey, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Chandni Sharma, Abhishek Pareek,
962                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Varun Punia, Kailash Prashad Pandey, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit
       Kumar Chawla, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Mahi Pal Singh, Ms.
       Manisha Chawla, Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Ms. Yamini Sharma, Ms.
       Ritika Raj, Neeeraj Shrivsatav, Varun Varma, Prahkar Sukla, Ajay
       Mishra, Harender K Sangwan, Akash, Ms. Chanchal, Shashank
       Gusain, Advs. for the appearing parties.
       Petitioner-in-Person.
                   Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                    Order
1.     The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG)1 2024 examination
       was conducted by the National Testing Agency2 on 5 May 2024.
       The results were declared on 4 June 2024.
2.     The examination was conducted at 4,750 centres comprised
       within 571 cities, besides 14 cities overseas. About 23,33,297
       candidates appeared for the examination. They are competing for
       1.08 lac medical admissions at the under-graduate level, of which
       approximately 56,000 seats are in government hospitals while the
       balance 52,000 seats are in privately managed institutions.
3.     The 50th percentile represents the cut-off for qualification. The
       examination consists of 180 questions, each carrying four marks,
       thus making a total of 720 marks overall. One negative mark is
       assigned for an incorrect answer. Based on the result of the NEET
       (UG) 2024, the 50th percentile has worked out to 164 marks out of
       720. Candidates who have attained this threshold are eligible to be
       considered for admission but are not guaranteed admission into the
       MBBS program. Seats are allocated both among the unreserved
       category of students and the reserved category, consisting of
       candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other
       Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections.
4.     In this batch of cases, the petitioners assert that a direction should
       be issued for convening a re-test on the ground that (i) there was a
       leakage of the question paper; and (ii) there are systemic deficiencies
       in the modalities envisaged for the conduct of the examination.


1    “NEET (UG)”
2    “NTA”
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         963

                  Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others


5.    The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners
      is that the leak which took place in the course of the NEET (UG)
      examination is systemic in nature and, coupled with the structural
      deficiencies in the conduct of the examination, the appropriate course
      of action in view of the previous decisions of this Court, including
      in Tanvi Sarwal vs Central Board of Secondary Education and
      Others3 and Sachin Kumar and Others vs Delhi Subordinate
      Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others,4 is to direct a
      re-test.
6.    By an interim order dated 8 July 2024, this Court called for
      disclosures on affidavit by the NTA; the Union of India; and by the
      Central Bureau of Investigation.5 While flagging the principal issues
      in contention, the CBI has been involved in the process because the
      FIRs which were registered in Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand,
      Maharashtra and Bihar have been transferred to it for investigation.
      In the earlier order, this Court noted that it would have to scrutinize
      the following aspects on the basis of the data which would emerge
      on the record, namely:
      (i)    Whether the alleged breach took place at a systemic level;
      (ii)   Whether the breach is of a nature which affects the integrity
             of the entire examination process; and
      (iii) Whether it is possible to segregate the beneficiaries of the
            fraud from the untainted students.
7.    Directions were consequently issued to the above agencies of the
      Union to make specific disclosures on the issues which have been
      highlighted in the previous order.
8.    Arguments have been heard over four days. We have had the benefit
      of considering the submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners,
      the Union of India and the NTA. Mr Y V Krishna, Additional Director,
      CBI has in the course of the proceedings apprised the Court on the
      status of the investigation.
9.    Arguments have been concluded and judgment has been reserved.


3    [2015] 7 SCR 780 : (2015) 6 SCC 573
4    [2021] 2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631
5    “CBI”
964                                                             [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


10. There is an urgent need to provide certainty and finality to a dispute
    which affects the careers of over two million students. Hence, it is
    imperative that the final conclusions of the Court be recorded at the
    present stage. The reasons for the ultimate conclusions will follow
    later.
11. We proceed to record the essential conclusions in the following terms:
       (i)    The fact that a leak of the NEET (UG) 2024 paper took place
              at Hazaribagh in the State of Jharkhand and at Patna in the
              State of Bihar is not in dispute;
       (ii)   Following the transfer of the investigation to it, the CBI has filed
              its status reports dated 10 July 2024, 17 July 2024 and 21 July
              2024. The disclosures by the CBI indicate that the investigation
              is continuing. The CBI has indicated that at the present stage,
              the material which has emerged during the course of the
              investigation would indicate that about 155 students drawn from
              the examination centres at Hazaribagh and Patna appear to
              be the beneficiaries of the fraud;
       (iii) Since the investigation by the CBI has not attained finality at
             the present point of time, this Court had in its previous order
             required the Union Government to indicate whether trends in
             regard to the existence of abnormalities can be deduced through
             data analytics on the basis of the results emanating from 4,750
             centres situated in 571 cities. Pursuant to the directions of the
             Court, the Union Government has produced a report of Indian
             Institute of Technology,6 Madras. The objection of the petitioners
             to the report of IIT, Madras on the grounds of alleged bias would
             be considered in the course of the reasoned judgment which
             will follow. At this stage, in order to obviate any controversy, the
             Court has independently scrutinized the data which has been
             placed on the record by the NTA;
       (iv) At the present stage, there is an absence of material on the
            record to lead to the conclusion that the entire result of the
            examination stands vitiated or that there was a systemic breach
            in the sanctity of the examination;



6   “IIT”
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         965

              Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others


     (v)   Added to the absence of conclusive material on the record
           at the present stage, the data which has been produced on
           the record city-wise and centre-wise and the comparison of
           data for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024 are not indicative of
           a systemic leak of the question paper impacting the sanctity
           of the examination;
     (vi) In arriving at the ultimate conclusion, the Court is guided by the
          well-settled test of whether it is possible to segregate tainted
          students from those whose candidature does not suffer from
          any taint. If the investigation reveals the involvement of an
          increased number of beneficiaries over and above those who
          are suspects at the present stage, action shall be pursued
          against every student found to be involved in wrong doing at
          any stage, notwithstanding the completion of the counselling
          process. No student who is revealed to have engaged in acts
          of fraud or to have been the beneficiary of malpractice would
          be entitled to claim a vested right or interest in the continuation
          of the admission in the future by virtue of the findings in this
          judgment; and
     (vii) Directing a fresh NEET (UG) to be conducted for the present
           year would be replete with serious consequences for over
           two million students who have appeared in the examination.
           Adopting such a course of action would, in particular, (i) lead to
           a disruption of the admission schedule for the commencement
           of medical courses, setting back the entire process by
           several months; (ii) lead to cascading effects on the course
           of medical education; (iii) impact the availability of qualified
           medical professionals in the future; and (iv) cause a serious
           element of disadvantage to students belonging to marginalized
           communities and weaker sections for whom reservation has
           been made in the allocation of seats.
12. Ordering the cancellation of the entire NEET (UG) 2024 examination
    is not justified on the application of the settled tests which have
    been propounded in the decisions of this Court or on the basis of
    the data and material available on the record.
13. Apart from this, it is necessary to deal with another contention of
    the petitioners. One of the questions in the course of the NEET
    (UG) 2024 was in the following terms:
966                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


           “Given below are two statements:
           Statement I: Atoms are electrically neutral as they contain
           equal number of positive and negative charges.
           Statement II: Atoms of each element are stable and emit
           their characteristic spectrum.
           In the light of the above statements, choose the most
           appropriate answer from the options given below:
           (1)   Statement I is incorrect but Statement II is correct.
           (2)   Both Statement I and Statement II are correct.
           (3)   Both Statement I and Statement II are incorrect.
           (4)   Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect.”
14. We have not indicated the number of the question since the number
    of the question as well of the options is likely to vary in different series
    of the question papers in view of the procedure which is followed to
    preserve the integrity of the process.
15. Initially, the answer key which was prepared by the NTA indicated
    that the fourth option extracted above was the correct answer.
    Subsequently, on representations submitted to NTA, a decision was
    taken to the effect that both the second as well as the fourth options
    would be treated to be the correct answers.
16. By an order of this Court dated 22 July 2024, the Director of IIT, Delhi
    was requested to constitute a three-member committee to submit its
    opinion on which of the options noted above would be the correct
    answer to the above question. The Director and Professor of the
    Department of Energy Science & Engineering at IIT, Delhi has in a
    report dated 23 July 2024, indicated that a three-member Committee
    from the Department of Physics comprising of (i) Professor Pradipta
    Ghosh; (ii) Professor Aditya Narain Agnihotri; and (iii) Professor
    Sankalpa Ghosh was constituted for that purpose.
17. The expert team constituted by the Director of IIT, Delhi has opined
    that option (4), as extracted above, is the correct answer. In order
    to obviate any ambiguity, option (4) which is to be treated as the
    correct answer is set out below:
           “(4) Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect.”
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        967

              Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others


18. The expert determination by the team constituted by the IIT, Delhi
    leaves no manner of ambiguity in regard to the correct option. This
    was, in fact, initially the only option which was treated as the correct
    answer by NTA. Options (2) and (4) are mutually exclusive and both
    cannot stand together.
19. We accept the report of IIT, Delhi. Accordingly, NTA shall revise
    the result of the NEET (UG) 2024 on the basis that option (4), as
    extracted above, represents the only correct answer to the question.
    NTA is directed to update the ranks of all candidates.
20. During the course of the hearing, the Court had been apprised of
    the fact that NTA was conducting a special test for 1,563 students
    in supersession of the compensatory marks which were awarded.
    The 1,563 students were given the option of either appearing for
    the special test or in the alternative, to opt for their original marks
    without the addition of compensatory marks. NTA is permitted to act
    following the test which was held.
21. The principal issue which has been urged before the Court relates
    to the sanctity of the NEET (UG) 2024 examination and whether the
    process should be scrapped and a fresh test should be reconvened.
    Having answered the question in the above terms, it needs to be
    clarified that if any student, including in the present batch, has an
    individual grievance not bearing on the issues which have been
    resolved by this judgment, it would be open to them to pursue their
    rights and remedies in accordance with law, including by moving
    the jurisdictional High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.
    However, before moving the High Court for the grant of relief, the
    petitioners would have to seek the withdrawal of their petitions before
    this Court, if any have been filed.
22. The Union Government has constituted a seven-member Expert
    Committee chaired by Dr K Radhakrishnan, former Chairman, ISRO
    consisting of the following members:
     (i)    Dr K Radhakrishnan, Chairman
     (ii)   Dr Randeep Guleria, Member
     (iii) Prof B J Rao, Member
     (iv) Prof Ramamurthy K, Member
968                                                         [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       (v)   Shri Pankaj Bansal, Member
       (vi) Prof Aditya Mittal, Member
       (vii) Shri Govind Jaiswal, Member Secretary
23. The Committee will abide by such further directions as may be
    issued by this Court in its final judgment and order in regard to the
    areas which should be enquired into by it so as to ensure that (i)
    the process of conducting the NEET (UG) and other examinations
    falling within the remit of the NTA is duly strengthened; and (ii) the
    instances which came to light during the course of the present year
    are not repeated in the future.
24. The transfer petitions at the instance of the NTA or any other
    party raising the issue as regards the validity of NEET (UG) 2024
    examination are allowed. The resulting transferred cases shall stand
    disposed of in terms of the above directions subject to the clarification
    that individual grievances, if any, that remain, may be addressed
    before the jurisdictional High Court. The interlocutory applications
    raising individual grievances are similarly permitted to be withdrawn
    with liberty reserved in the above terms.
       T.P. (c) No. 1602 of 2024
25. Counsel for the petitioner in TP (Civil) No. 1602 of 2024 seeks
    permission of the Court to amend the petition. Permission is granted
    to amend the petition during the course of the week.
       Writ Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2024, Writ Petition (Civil) No.
       381 of 2024, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 398 of 2024 & Writ Petition
       (Civil) Diary No. 28729 of 2024
26. Counsel for the petitioners seek the permission of the Court to
    withdraw the Petitions with liberty to pursue their rights and remedies
    in accordance with law, including by moving the jurisdictional High
    Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.
27. The Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought.
       IA No. 146158 of 2024 & IA No. 146162 of 2024 In Writ Petition
       (Civil) No. 379 of 2024
28. Mr Kunal Cheema, counsel for the applicants seeks the permission
    of the Court to withdraw the Interlocutory Applications with liberty to
    pursue their rights and remedies in accordance with law.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                           969

                 Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others


29. The Interlocutory Applications are dismissed as withdrawn with
    liberty as sought.

     Result of the case: W.P(C)No. 335 of 2024 – Reasoned judgment
                          to follow.
                             Writ Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2024, Writ
                             Petition (Civil) No. 381 of 2024, Writ Petition
                             (Civil) No. 398 of 2024 & Writ Petition (Civil)
                             Diary No. 28729 of 2024 are dismissed.
                             IA No. 146158 of 2024 & IA No. 146162 of
                             2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 379 of 2024
                             are dismissed.
     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan