Holding

The Court held that the NEET 2024 exam was not compromised systemically, so a fresh examination was not warranted, and only the specific question answer needed correction.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined petitions seeking the cancellation of the 2024 NEET (UG) exam on the ground that the question paper had been leaked in Hazaribagh and Patna and that the exam’s integrity was compromised. The Court evaluated evidence from the National Testing Agency (NTA), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and data analytics performed by IIT Madras, finding that the leak was limited to isolated incidents affecting only about 155 candidates. Statistical analysis of results showed no abnormal patterns or systemic malpractice when compared with previous years. The Court also addressed a disputed question where NTA had initially marked two options as correct, directing that only the originally intended answer be accepted. Concluding that the sanctity of the exam was not vitiated at a systemic level and that tainted candidates could be identified, the Court declined to order a fresh exam, directing only the correction of the specific question and the implementation of remedial measures. The petitions were consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the answer to the disputed question in the NEET 2024 paper should be revised by NTA
Whether there was a conflict of interest with the Director of IIT Madras analysing the examination data
Whether the sanctity and integrity of the NEET 2024 examination were compromised at a systemic level warranting cancellation and a fresh test

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

EducationExaminationNational Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024National Testing Agency (NTA)Leakage of the question paperSystemic deficienciesIntegrity of the examTainted candidates and untainted candidatesCancellation of an examinationRe-examExamination Security and administrationData Security and Technological EnhancementsPolicy and Stakeholder EngagementCollaboration and International cooperationSupport and training

Judgment

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 45 : 2024 INSC 568

Vanshika Yadav
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of 2024)
02 August 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI,* J.B. Pardiwala and
Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the sanctity of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(NEET) (UG) was compromised in the year 2024 and whether the
process should be scrapped and a fresh test should be convened.

Headnotes†
Education – Medical Education – MBBS Admission –
Examination – Entrance Test – National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Leakage of the question
paper – Systemic deficiencies – Separation of tainted and
untainted candidates:
Held: It is settled law that the cancellation of an examination,
either for the purposes of gaining admission into professional and
other courses or for the purpose of recruitment to a government
post, is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the exam is
found to be compromised at a systemic level – Courts may direct
the cancellation of an examination or approve such cancellation
by the competent authority only if it is not possible to separate
the tainted candidates from the untainted ones – In the instant
case, that the question paper was leaked and some students
indulged in malpractice is beyond cavil – No party before the Court
including NTA disputes this – Certain centres found themselves
in the midst of the controversy in this case – It was averred that
malpractice was widespread in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, Patna,
Bihar, and Godhra, Gujarat – From the figures provided by NTA,
it becomes clear that there are no abnormalities in the results for
2024 when compared with the results for the past two years – The
report of the Director of IIT, Madras also supports the conclusion
of this Court – The report stated that there were no “abnormal
indications” in the results for this year, when compared to previous

* Author
46 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

years – Hence, an analysis of the results does not lend support
to the case of the petitioners who seek the cancellation of the
exam – The leak of the paper does not appear to be widespread
or systemic – It appears to be restricted to isolated incidents in
some cities, which have been identified by the police or are in the
process of being identified by the CBI – The material on record
does not, at present, substantiate the allegation that there has been
a widespread malpractice which compromised the integrity of the
exam – To the contrary, an assessment of the data indicates that
there are no deviations which indicate that systemic cheating has
taken place – The information at this stage does not show that
the question paper was disseminated widely using social media
or the internet, or that the answers were being communicated
to students using sophisticated electronic means which may
prove difficult to trace – The students who were beneficiaries
of the leak at Hazaribagh and Patna are capable of being
identified – The CBI investigation reveals the number of students
who are the beneficiaries of the malpractice at Hazaribagh
and Patna at this stage – This leads to conclude that it is
possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice or fraud from
the honest students – This being the case, the Court cannot direct
a re-exam. [Paras 61, 74, 77, 84]
Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Conduct of NTA, a cause of concern:
Held: The paper was leaked in Patna and Hazaribagh – In one
of the centres, the rear door of the strongroom was opened and
unauthorised persons were permitted to access the question
papers – This indicates that there is a serious lapse in security and
that security measures which are stringent and effective must be
implemented by NTA – Further, it came to light that the question
papers were sometimes transported in e-rickshaws and that the
services of private courier companies were availed – NTA did
not specify a time by which the OMR sheets were required to be
sealed after the conclusion of the exam – Another point of concern
is that NTA relies on persons over whom it does not exercise direct
oversight to be the invigilators for the exam – There are various
methods which may be adopted to ensure appropriate oversight
over invigilators and decrease the likelihood of the use of unfair
means – In at least twelve centres, the question paper stored in
Canara Bank was wrongly distributed to candidates – The question
paper which should have been distributed was the one stored in
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 47

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

SBI – In many centres, aspirants completed the incorrect question
paper and were ultimately evaluated while in others, the relevant
authorities realised the mistake and then distributed the correct
question paper – NTA must consider the various possibilities and
plan the protocol to be followed after careful consideration – The
use of mobile applications to communicate with the relevant parties
would permit real-time communication and allow NTA to inform
the banks even a few minutes before the time at which the city
coordinator was authorised to collect the papers – When the results
were released, it appeared that sixty-seven aspirants had scored a
perfect score of 720 / 720 – After the removal of the compensatory
marks and the conduct of the re-test for 1563 candidates and also
resolving a question in controversy in the paper by an earlier judgment
dated 23.07.2024, the number of scorers with 720/720 marks then
dropped to seventeen – Same is a matter of serious concern that
this number fell from sixty-seven to seventeen during the course of
the hearing – The intervention of the Court, reports by the media,
and representations by candidates ensured that these changes were
made in the interests of fairness and justice – However, the system
adopted by NTA should be such that just outcomes are reached
even when these external catalysts are not present – Therefore, the
NTA is directed to ensure that all the concerns highlighted by the
Court in this judgment are addressed. [Paras 96, 97, 98, 99, 102]
Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Committee constituted by the Union
Government:
Held: The formation of a committee is essential to thoroughly
investigate and address the structural issues – A dedicated committee
with suitably qualified experts can ensure a comprehensive review
of the security measures, candidate verification processes, and
the overall management of the examination – By identifying and
rectifying vulnerabilities, such a committee will help restore trust
in the examination system and implement robust safeguards
to prevent future malpractice – The Union Government has
constituted a seven-member expert committee – The remit of
the Committee, in addition to the tasks that it has been entrusted
with by the Union government and the NTA, shall encompass the
following: (a) Examination Security and Administration; (b)
Data Security and Technological Enhancements; (c) Policy and
Stakeholder Engagement; (d) Collaboration and International
Cooperation; (e) Support and Training.
48 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – The remit of the Committee, in addition
to the tasks shall encompass the Examination Security and
Administration:
Held: (i) Evaluate and recommend reforms in the mechanism
of administration of the exam; (ii) Formulate standard operating
procedures which set out the timelines for registration, changes
to preferred cities, the sealing of OMR sheets once candidates
submit them to the invigilator, and other processes related to the
conduct of the exam; (iii) Review the process by which exam
centres are currently allotted to candidates and recommend any
changes which may be required in the interests of fairness and
transparency; (iv) Recommend stricter procedures for verifying
candidate identities, if required, with a view to preventing
impersonation and ensuring that only registered and authorized
candidates are allowed to take the exams; (v) Consider the viability
of comprehensive CCTV surveillance systems at all examination
centers, including real- time monitoring and recording of all
activities; (vi) Review and suggest enhancements for the processes
for the setting, printing, transportation, storage, and handling of
question papers – This may include tamper-evident packaging and
using secure logistics providers to prevent unauthorized access
and leaks during critical phases; (vii) Consider the viability of
conducting regular audits and surprise inspections of examination
centres; (viii) Recommend the development of a robust grievance
redressal mechanism – This should allow candidates to report any
irregularities or issues promptly. [Para 106(a)]
Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – The remit of the Committee, in
addition to the tasks shall encompass the Data Security and
Technological Enhancements:
Held: (i) Research and suggest advanced data security
protocols, including encryption and secure data transmission
methods; (ii) Recommend systems to monitor and track digital
footprints related to the examination materials; (iii) Consider
how regularly cybersecurity audits and vulnerability assessments
must be conducted to identify and address potential weaknesses
in the electronic dissemination and storage systems; (iv) Explore
technological innovations to enhance examination security and
efficiency. [Para 106(b)]
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 49

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – The remit of the Committee, in addition
to the tasks shall encompass the Policy and Stakeholder
Engagement:
Held: (i) Review and recommend updates to the policies and
SOPs of NTA to align with best practices, ensuring that the
agency is equipped to handle evolving challenges in examination
security; (ii) Establish a transparent communication strategy
to keep all stakeholders, including candidates, educational
institutions, and the public, informed about the measures being
taken to ensure the integrity and fairness of the examination
process as well as of the response of NTA to any malpractice
which is identified; (iii) Recommend the implementation of a
comprehensive communication strategy to keep all stakeholders
involved in the process — including banks, examination centres,
and logistical partners — well-informed – This strategy should
detail the protocols for secure transportation, storage, and
handling of examination materials, and ensure regular updates
on any issues or changes; (iv) Recommend measures to
address and mitigate any socioeconomic disparities that may
affect candidates’ ability to participate in or benefit from the
examination process. [Para 106(c)]
Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – The remit of the Committee, in
addition to the tasks shall encompass the Collaboration and
International cooperation:
Held: (i) Consider the viability of NTA engaging in international
cooperation with examination bodies and educational authorities
from other countries to share best practices, security measures, and
innovative solutions; and (ii) Suggest the creation of a management
framework to identify, assess, and mitigate potential risks related
to examination security – This framework should include protocols
for assessing risks, contingency plans, and strategies for dealing
with unforeseen challenges that may arise during the examination
process. [Para 106(d)]
Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – The remit of the Committee, in addition
to the tasks shall encompass the Support and training:
Held: (i) Recommend plans or strategies for the development and
implementation of mental health support programs for students,
50 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

including counselling services and stress management workshops –
These programs should address the psychological impact of exams
and also ensure the well-being of all candidates throughout the
examination process – Qualified experts from relevant fields must
be consulted for this purpose; and (ii) Consider the viability of NTA
conducting comprehensive training programs for all staff involved
in the examination process (including but not limited to question
paper setters, invigilators, and administrative personnel) – These
programs should cover security protocols, ethical standards, and
the latest technology to ensure everyone involved is well-equipped
to maintain the integrity of the examination. [Para 106(e)]

Case Law Cited

Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board [2021]
2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631; Union of India v. Rajesh P.U.
[2003] Supp. 1 SCR 883 : (2003) 7 SCC 285 – relied on.

Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [1984] 1 SCR 73 : (1983) 4
SCC 309; Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission
[1989] Supp. 2 SCR 124 : (1990) Supp SCC 692; Bihar School
Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha [1970] 3 SCR 963 :
(1970) 1 SCC 648; Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash
Shiksha Prasar Samiti (1998) 9 SCC 236; Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE
[2015] 7 SCR 780 : (2015) 6 SCC 573 – referred to.

List of Keywords
Education; Examination; National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(NEET) (UG) 2024; National Testing Agency (NTA); Leakage of
the question paper; Systemic deficiencies; Integrity of the exam;
Tainted candidates and untainted candidates; Cancellation of an
examination; Re-exam; Examination Security and administration;
Data Security and Technological Enhancements; Policy and
Stakeholder Engagement; Collaboration and International
cooperation; Support and training.

Case Arising From

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.335 of 2024
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 51

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

W.P. (C) Nos. 362, 369, 368, 431, 379, 377, 376, 375, 425, 401, 415,
407, 412, 383, 419, 406, 403, 414, 423, 427, 441, 420, 430, 446 and
410 of 2024, T.P. (C) No.1602 of 2024, W.P. (C) Nos. 382, 394, 384,
389, 417, 393, 435, 449 and 392 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
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
52 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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,
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,
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 53

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

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,
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

Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents*

A. Background ..................................................................... 5
B. Previous orders of the Court ......................................... 8
C. Submissions ..................................................................... 16
D. Issues ............................................................................... 20
E. Analysis ............................................................................. 20

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
54 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

i. Facts which have emerged during the course of
the hearing ................................................................ 20
a. Chain of custody of question papers as detailed
by NTA ................................................................. 20
b. Issues in Hazaribagh, Sawai Madhopur, Patna
and other places ................................................. 23
ii. The marks awarded for one of the questions must
be revised because only one of the options is the
correct answer. .......................................................... 26
iii. There is no conflict of interest with the Director of
IIT, Madras analysing the data in this case ......... 30
iv. There is no evidence to indicate a systemic leak
as on date .................................................................. 33
a. Position of law ....................................................... 33
b. The present case ................................................. 38
F. The conduct of NTA: Cause for concern ..................... 51
G. Issues in the conduct of the examination and the remit
of the committee constituted by the Union Government. 55
H. Parting remarks ............................................................... 61

1. This batch of matters concerns the validity of the National Eligibility
cum Entrance Test1 for undergraduate students. The petitions were
disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Court by its
judgment dated 23 July 2024. Detailed reasons were to follow the
order. They are recorded in this judgment.
A. Background
2. The National Testing Agency2 conducts the NEET every year for
admission into medical colleges. A total of 1,08,000 seats are
available for the MBSS course. Of the seats available for the MBBS
course, approximately 56,000 seats are in government hospitals and
about 52,000 are in private colleges. Admissions to undergraduate
courses in Dentistry, Ayurveda, Unani, and Siddha also utilise the
results of the NEET for admission.

1 “NEET”
2 “NTA”
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 55

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

3. The NEET is divided into four segments comprising Physics,
Chemistry, Botany, and Zoology. Each section contains forty-five
questions. The test comprises a total of one hundred and eighty
questions. Four marks are awarded for every question which is
attempted correctly and one mark is subtracted for each incorrect
answer. Questions which are not attempted attract neither positive nor
negative marks. Hence, the test carries a maximum of 720 marks in
total. The total duration of the test was three hours and twenty minutes.
4. This year, NTA opened the online portal for registration for the NEET
on 9 February 2024. NEET was conducted on 5 May 2024 for over
23 lakh candidates at 4750 centres in 571 cities. The exam was
also conducted in fourteen cities overseas. Soon after the exam,
it became known that the question paper was leaked or illegally
circulated amongst some students prior to the conduct of the exam at
Hazaribagh in Jharkhand and in Patna. First Information Reports3 were
registered in multiple states including Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat,
Rajasthan and Jharkhand. The Bihar Police appears to have issued
a press release4 stating that its Economic Offences Unit had arrested
thirteen persons in Patna in connection with the leak. The Additional
Director General of Police, Economic Offences Unit appears to have
issued a communication stating that the Economic Offences Unit has
not released an official press statement.
5. When the results were declared by NTA on 4 June 2024, it emerged
that compensatory or grace marks were awarded to 1563 candidates
at certain centres who did not have the opportunity to utilize the entire
duration of the exam (i.e., 3 hours 20 minutes). The compensatory
marks were awarded upon the recommendation of the Grievance
Redressal Committee constituted by NTA. Following the grant of grace
marks, these candidates scored in the range of -20 to 720 marks.
6. The investigation into the leak of the paper and the adoption of other
unfair means by candidates was transferred from the Bihar State
police to the Economic Offences Unit in Bihar. The investigation was
later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.5

3 “FIR”
4 Dated 10 May 2024
5 “CBI”
56 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

7. Various writ petitions were instituted inter alia for cancellation of the
exam and conduct of a fresh exam. The petitions variously sought
the issuance of the following directions:
a. Direct NTA to conduct a fresh examination;
b. Stay the counselling process scheduled to begin from 6 July
2024;
c. Direct all states to constitute Special Investigation Teams to
investigate paper leaks in their jurisdictions and to submit status
reports on the same;
d. Constitute an expert committee to:
i. Enquire into the examination process and results; and
ii. Make recommendations on how to improve the process
of conducting the examination;
e. Set aside the portion of the NTA Information Bulletin that
discriminates between wrong questions and questions having
two wrong answers;
f. Issue guidelines to prevent papers from leaking in the future;
g. Direct NTA to correct and republish the results, ranks, and
percentiles based on the revised marks;
h. Declare the award of grace marks to candidates unequally as
arbitrary and illegal; and
i. Stay the declaration of results.
B. Previous orders of the Court
8. Some candidates who had appeared for the NEET objected to the
award of compensatory marks to 1563 candidates on various grounds.
By its order dated 13 June 2024, this Court noted that NTA constituted
another committee to reconsider the issue. The second committee
met on 10, 11 and 12 June 2024 to discuss the grievances raised.
It recommended that the grace marks be revoked, and the affected
candidates be given the option to take a fresh test.
9. The 1563 affected candidates were given two options – they could
either choose to attempt the re-test, in which case they would be
ranked based solely on their scores in the re-test, or they could
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 57

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

retain their scores from the first test without the compensatory
marks. This Court found this course of action to be fair, reasonable
and justified. It also recorded the submission of NTA that the re-
test would be conducted on 23 June 2024 and the results would be
declared before 30 June 2024. The re-test was conducted and the
results were declared.
10. By its order dated 8 July 2024, this Court noted the central
submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners. It observed that the
question of whether the paper leak was confined only to Patna or
extended across cities was a matter which must be reserved for
more detailed consideration. It also noted that the litmus test for
whether a re-test ought to be directed was based on the following
aspects:
a. Whether the alleged breach took place at a systemic level;
b. Whether the breach was of a nature which affected the integrity
of the entire examination process; and
c. Whether it was possible to segregate the beneficiaries of the
fraud from the untainted students.
11. The Court also made certain observations on the competing
considerations in a case such as the present one:
“12. In a situation where the breach in the sanctity of an
examination affects the entirety of the process and it is
not possible to segregate those who are the beneficiaries
of wrongdoing from others, a re-test is likely to be the
most appropriate course of action. On the contrary, where
the breach is confined to specific areas or centres and it
is possible to identify those who are the beneficiaries of
wrongdoing, it may not be appropriate to order a re-test
particularly in an examination which has been conducted
on such a massive scale and which involves over 23 lakh
students. The Court cannot also be unmindful of the social
consequences involving such a large body of students
who have studied for the examination, undertaken costs
and expenses and would have to undergo the rigours
of a fresh examination if one were to be ordered by the
Court. Balancing these considerations requires a careful
58 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

assessment of the extent and impact of the breach on
the integrity of the examination process, ensuring fairness
to all stakeholders.”
12. Noting that a final decision in the matter would depend on a more
detailed set of facts which must be placed on record, it issued five
directions requiring the Union of India, NTA, and the Central Bureau
of Investigation to each make certain disclosures. First, NTA was
required to clarify the following aspects on the basis of all the material
which was in its possession as of that date:
“14. … (i) When and how NTA first became aware of the
paper leak, including any internal notifications or external
reports;
(ii) The cities or towns and the centres at which a leak
has been noticed or in which candidates have complained
of a leak;
(iii) The manner in which the question papers leaked
were disseminated to candidates or other persons who
would, in turn, distribute them to candidates. In other
words, information about the medium through which the
leak took place and whether it was electronic (including
social media or mobile applications) or physical shall be
placed on record;
(iv) The duration of time between the occurrence of the
leak or the suspected occurrence of the leak and the actual
conduct of the examination which took place between 2
pm and 5:20 pm on 5 May 2024;
(v) The chain of custody of the question paper from the
time of its preparation to the time of its dissemination to
candidates on the day of the examination; and
(vi) Whether the entirety of the question paper was leaked
or whether certain sections or questions were leaked.”
13. Second, the Court directed the Investigating Officer of the CBI to
file a status report indicating the status of the investigation and
the material which had been gathered until date. The Investigating
Officer was directed to specify the modalities by which the leaked
question paper was made available to students. Additionally, both
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 59

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

NTA and the CBI were directed make a disclosure in regard to the
steps which had been taken to identify the beneficiaries of the leak.
They were required to detail the following:
“16. … (i) The steps which were taken by NTA to identify
the centres/cities at which the leak took place;
(ii) The modalities followed for identifying the beneficiaries
of the leak; and
(iii) The number of students who have so far been identified
to be the beneficiaries of the leaked question papers and
the centres at which they appeared for the examination.”
14. Third, the Union of India and NTA were directed to inform the
Court as to whether it was feasible to use data analytics to identify
suspicious cases. If such an approach was found to be feasible, the
parameters used for flagging such cases (such as abnormal score
patterns) were required to be placed on record.
15. Fourth, NTA was required to make submissions on the decision to be
taken on the status of counselling, in view of the potential exercise
to be conducted by NTA or the Union Government to identify further
beneficiaries of the leak of the question paper.
16. Finally, the government was required to apprise the Court of the
steps which were being taken to ensure that the sanctity of the NEET
was not compromised in future iterations and issues similar to the
ones which arose in 2024 are not repeated in the future. The Court
was of the opinion that this was essential because the students
who appeared for the examination and whose careers hung in the
balance must have confidence in the process. The Court observed
that the government must consider constituting a multi-disciplinary
committee with experts which could recommend measures to obviate
breaches of the NEET as well as other exams conducted by NTA.
If such a committee had already been constituted, the Court was to
be apprised of its composition to enable it to consider whether the
composition ought to be strengthened.
17. The Union of India as well as NTA filed affidavits complying with the
above directions. The Ministry of Education requested IIT Madras to
undertake comprehensive data analytics on the NEET results of 2024.
The report submitted by IIT Madras was also tendered to the Court.
60 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

18. On 18 July 2024, this Court heard detailed arguments from Mr.
Narendra Hooda, senior counsel for the petitioners, on the various
issues arising for consideration in this matter. The Solicitor General
appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Naresh Kaushik, senior
counsel for NTA, also addressed the Court on certain aspects of
the case. Other counsel on behalf of the petitioners and intervenors
were heard.
19. The Court was of the opinion that it would subserve the principle of
transparency if the results were published by NTA and made available
to the public at large. Accordingly, it directed NTA to publish the
city-wise and centre-wise results of candidates on its website after
anonymising them, by 12 noon on 20 July 2024. Further, the Bihar
Police was directed to apprise the Court of the material collected by
it before the investigation was transferred to CBI. These directions
were complied with.
20. On 22 July 2024, counsel for one of the petitioners advanced
submissions inter alia on whether the approach adopted by NTA
towards one of the questions in the examination was proper. The
contours of this issue are delineated in detail in subsequent segments
of this judgment. As one of the sub-issues concerned the correct
answer to the question, the Court sought an expert opinion from
the Indian Institute of Technology,6 Delhi. The Director of IIT, Delhi
was requested to constitute a team of three experts to determine
the correct answer to the question and communicate its opinion to
the Court by 12 noon on the following day. The opinion of the expert
committee was then communicated to the Court, as requested.
21. On 23 July 2024, the arguments in the case were concluded and the
conclusions were pronounced in court after the hearings concluded.
The Court held that the standard prescribed by decisions of this
court for the cancellation of the test had not been met and that a
re-test was not warranted. The conclusion of the Court rested on
the absence of sufficient material, as on that date, indicative of a
widespread or systemic leak or other malpractice. The conclusions
of the Court are reproduced below:

6 “IIT”
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 61

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

“11. … (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 WPC 335/2024 7 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;
(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;
62 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(vi) In arriving at the ultimate conclusion, the Court is
guided by the well-settled 6 “IIT” WPC 335/2024 8 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.”
22. The Court also accepted the report of IIT, Delhi on the correct
answer to a particular question which was the subject of controversy.
Consequently, NTA was directed to revise the marks of all candidates
and update their ranks on the basis of the revised results. The Court
also clarified that candidates could agitate any individual grievances,
not bearing upon the issues resolved in that judgment, before the
High Courts in accordance with law. Lastly, the Court noticed the
constitution of the seven-member committee by the Union government
to address any issues with the procedures adopted in the conduct
of the exam and passed the following direction:
“23. The Committee will abide by such further directions
as may be issued by this Court in its final judgment and
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 63

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

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.”
C. Submissions
23. The petitioners, represented by Mr Narender Hooda, Mr Sanjay R.
Hegde, senior counsel and others, have broadly submitted that:
a. There was a widespread leak of the question paper prior to the
conduct of the exam, leading to the integrity of the exam being
vitiated on a systemic level;
b. The scores and ranks of candidates are highly inflated in 2024
as compared to previous years;
c. NTA’s explanation for the score and rank inflation is that they
are due to a 25% reduction in the syllabus. This explanation is
misleading as the syllabus also included new topics;
d. The significant score inflation in NEET in 2024 has disadvantaged
deserving candidates, making it difficult for them to secure
admission to government medical colleges and pushing them
towards private institutions, which many middle-class families
cannot afford. This inflation has disrupted rankings and affected
admission opportunities;
e. Concerns have been raised about the handling and transportation
of examination materials. Reports indicate a six-day delay in
transporting question papers to Hazaribagh, which raises issues
of possible tampering. These concerns are compounded by
reports that contradict NTA’s claims of secure transportation
and live CCTV monitoring;
f. The OMR sheets remain at the exam centre for some time
after the exam, with persons who may tamper with them if they
choose to;
g. NTA has not adopted a fair marking system for one of the
questions. Although only one option is the correct answer, it has
treated two options as being correct and has awarded marks for
both answers. This is unfair and disadvantages many candidates;
64 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

h. The question paper was leaked via ‘Telegram’ (an instant
messaging platform);
i. There are discrepancies in the data provided in ‘Table 8’ of
NTA’s press release dated 4 June 2024 compared to the results
announced on 20 July 2024;
j. The report of the Director, IIT Madras overlooks critical issues
such as: (i) the unusually high number of candidates scoring
the perfect score i.e., 720/720; (ii) a sharp increase in students
scoring above 700 marks; (iii) significant rank inflation in the
600-720 range; and (iv) the concentration of top scorers in a
limited number of cities;
k. The report of the Director, IIT Madras is not reliable because
there is a conflict of interest with this case. This is due to the
Director being a member of the General Body of NTA;
l. The selective awarding of compensatory marks to 1563 aspirants
without transparent criteria as to how they were selected
suggests manipulation to benefit certain candidates;
m. Independent analyses suggest that anomalies in the data remain
undetected, pointing to systemic issues rather than isolated
incidents of cheating. This highlights the need for thorough
scrutiny of the examination process;
n. Systematic failures, including widespread paper leaks, tampering
with OMR sheets, and misuse of compensatory marks, suggest
a broader security lapse within NTA;
o. NTA’s lack of transparency is evident from its initial denial of
leaks and inconsistent statements about the extent of paper
leaks and compensatory marks;
p. The re-examination process was discriminatory. It did not
provide all affected candidates an opportunity to participate.
Furthermore, NTA did not include details about compensatory
marks in its official press release;
q. NTA appoints private parties to be invigilators. No adequate
system of oversight is present to ensure that these private
parties do not enable malpractice or are not corrupt; and
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 65

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

r. The scandal has undermined public trust in the examination
system and the medical profession, leading to mental health
issues among students. Immediate reforms are necessary to
restore public confidence and ensure fairness in the examination
process.
24. The Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr Naresh Kaushik,
senior counsel for NTA, advanced the following submissions:
a. No mass malpractice has taken place. There were only isolated
incidents of malpractice which have been identified and dealt
with. Cancelling the exam and conducting a re-exam is not
warranted and is contrary to public interest;
b. In Godhra, the attempt to cheat was foiled by prompt action by
the authorities. In Patna, the investigation is underway and the
results of some candidates have been withheld. However, the
preliminary number of candidates alleged to have cheated is
miniscule compared to the total number of candidates;
c. The high number of perfect scores and generally higher marks is
because of a reduction in the syllabus by approximately 22-25%
compared to last year. Further, the questions were prepared
on the basis of universally accessible textbooks to ensure that
those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds do not
suffer and to reduce dependency on coaching centres. The
top 100 candidates were from 95 different centres in fifty-six
different cities in eighteen States or Union Territories;
d. With reference to the question in controversy, the information
bulletin released before the exam clearly states that if there
are two correct answers, those who marked either one will be
awarded marks. Therefore, candidates cannot claim that they
did not answer this question because two correct answers
were present;
e. The report by the Director of IIT, Madras indicated that there
was no evidence of mass malpractice or localized advantages
in score distribution. It observed that there was an increase in
marks, particularly in the range of 550 to 720, and attributed
this to a 25% reduction in syllabus. Candidates achieving high
scores were found across multiple cities and centres, suggesting
minimal likelihood of malpractice;
66 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

f. There was no leak of the question paper via Telegram;
g. The results of candidates suspected of malpractice have
been withheld. Show cause notices have been issued to such
persons. NTA will respond appropriately to any future cases of
malpractice as well;
h. A committee has been constituted to look into improvements
to the exam;
i. The reopening of the registration window did not lead to the
facilitation of malpractice; and
j. There is no conflict of interest with the Director of IIT, Madras
analysing the data in this case because he is only an ex officio
member.
D. Issues
25. The following issues arose for consideration in this case:
a. Whether the answer for the question in controversy ought to
be revised by NTA;
b. Whether there was a conflict of interest with the Director of IIT,
Madras analysing the data in this case; and
c. Whether the sanctity and integrity of the exam were compromised
at a systemic level.
E. Analysis
i. Facts which have emerged during the course of the hearing
a. Chain of custody of question papers as detailed by
NTA
26. In its affidavits as well as during the course of hearing, NTA provided
a comprehensive account of the chain of custody for the question
papers, detailing their handling of the question paper, from its
preparation to its distribution on the day of the exam. The information
provided by NTA is detailed in this segment.
27. The process begins with the preparation of the question bank. From
August to December 2023, experts were invited to the NTA office to
create questions in workshop mode. These sessions took place in a
restricted area, with the experts sealing their work daily to maintain
the security and confidentiality of the content.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 67

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

28. The next phase involves the preparation, vetting, solving, and typing
of the question papers. From 16 February to 28 February 2024,
subject experts developed two independent sets of question papers
under continuous CCTV surveillance. These papers underwent
a rigorous vetting and solving process from 1 March to 7 March
2024, where feedback was collected, and necessary changes were
implemented. The final versions of the question papers were then
typed confidentially, with the question papers and answer keys lodged
separately to prevent any breaches of security.
29. Following the preparation, the manuscripts were dispatched to two
separate printing presses on 31 March 2024, adhering to stringent
security protocols. Each press was tasked with producing twenty-four
sets of question papers with randomized sequencing, overseen by
two officers to ensure compliance with security measures.
30. Simultaneously, OMR sheets were printed at a different location
and paired with the corresponding question papers which were then
sealed in polythene covers to be accessible only to the candidates.
These materials, totalling 72 booklets per batch, were then secured
in cloth-lined envelopes, strapped, and placed in GPS-enabled trunks
with electronic locks, which were monitored via real-time CCTV
throughout the process.
31. The final stage involves the transportation and distribution of the
question papers to the examination centres. The question papers
for Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, were dispatched on 28 April 2024, via a
private logistics company and transported in dedicated closed-body
vehicles with electronic locks and GPS tracking.
32. The two different sets of question papers were stored in two separate
custodian banks, in all cities: one set was stored in Canara Bank
and the other in State Bank of India.7 Upon arrival at the custodian
banks on 3 May 2024, the materials were stored in safety vaults.
The papers were then transported from the banks to the examination
centres using e-rickshaws.
33. On the day of the examination, city coordinators, appointed and
authorized by the Director General of NTA are responsible for
collecting the correct set of question papers from the custodian

7 “SBI”
68 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

bank. According to the procedure, the city coordinator is required to
accompany both the centre superintendent and a neutral observer
appointed by NTA. The NTA uses a mobile application to communicate
to the city coordinators as to which set of papers should be taken,
from either Canara Bank or SBI. The city coordinators collected the
materials on 5 May 2024 from SBI, upon being intimated that the
question papers from SBI were to be distributed to the students.
34. We were informed that the question paper trunks were stored in
CCTV-monitored rooms and opened 45 minutes before the exam (at
1:15 pm), with the process witnessed and certified by two invigilators
and two candidates. Each invigilator received an envelope containing
24 booklets, which were distributed according to the seating plan.
Candidates were allowed to open the question paper seals at 1:55
pm, just before the commencement of the exam.
b. Issues in Hazaribagh, Sawai Madhopur, Patna and
other places
35. Counsel for the parties disagreed on when the paper was leaked.
During the course of the hearing, the petitioners submitted that the
leak occurred before 5 May 2024. They argued that the paper was
leaked on 3 May, prior to being deposited in the bank, suggesting
that the leak took place at an early stage in the process. The Solicitor
General of India stated that the paper leaked on the morning of 5 May
2024, purportedly from the Oasis School, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
36. The NTA has reported that the leak of the examination paper occurred
between 8:02 am and 9:23 am on 5 May 2024. According to their
submission, the accused gained unauthorized access by entering
the strongroom at Oasis School through a rear door. Once inside,
the individual accessed one of the trunks containing the examination
materials. This trunk was part of the secure storage intended to
safeguard the question papers before distribution. CCTV footage
from the school shows him entering at 8:02 am and leaving at 9:23
am. It was also submitted that the accused opened the trunk from
the rear so as not to break the seal, took the papers from the trunk,
photographed them, resealed the envelope, and delivered the digital
copies to the paper solvers by around 9:30 am.
37. 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 reports presently indicate that the Botany and Zoology segments
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 69

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

were solved first, followed by the Physics and Chemistry segments.
According to the report, the scanned papers were subsequently
sent over WhatsApp to persons in Patna. Furthermore, the reports
stated that the solved papers were sent to persons in Hazaribagh.
Specifically, two locations in Patna and two in Hazaribagh were
identified in the report. The investigation (at this stage) has revealed
that the question paper was shared with the candidates only
after 10:15 AM, and after 12 noon, they were asked to go to their
examination centres.
38. NTA issued a press release on 5 May 2024, acknowledging the
issue of incorrect distribution of question papers, which resulted in a
significant loss of time for the candidates at Girls Higher Secondary
Model School, Mandir, Mantown, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
However, during the course of arguments before us, it emerged that
twelve centres initially received question papers from Canara Bank
instead of SBI. Of these, four centres replaced the papers originating
in Canara Bank with papers lodged in safe custody with SBI upon
realizing the mistake. Consequently, in eight centres, candidates
attempted the Canara Bank paper in full. As a result, approximately
3,307 candidates were assessed on their performance with respect to
the Canara Bank papers instead of the SBI papers. NTA has stated
that both sets of papers were prepared by moderators to ensure
that the difficulty level was the same.
39. The reports filed by the CBI indicate that the investigation is ongoing.
At this stage, the CBI has indicated that the material gathered
during the investigation suggests that about 155 students from
the examination centres in Hazaribagh and Patna appear to be
beneficiaries of the fraud (around 30 in Patna and around 125 in
Hazaribagh). No material has been placed before us to demonstrate
that the question paper or the solved answers were circulated at
random or en masse over social media.
40. Separately, it appears that a plan to use unfair means in Godhra
was uncovered before it could be executed. The affidavit filed by NTA
states that a Deputy Superintendent of Examination had conspired
with some students to fill in the answers in the OMR sheet after
the conclusion of the test. The affidavit further states that the police
became aware of this plan and that they arrested the accused persons
before the test began. The candidates suspected to be involved in
70 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

this conspiracy were identified. NTA submits that their results were
withheld and that show cause notices were issued to them.
41. This situation highlights several administrative and procedural flaws
within NTA’s management of the exam. Firstly, the fact that question
papers from Canara Bank were distributed to students in twelve
centres instead of papers from SBI reveals a lapse in coordination and
oversight. The fact that four centres managed to rectify the mistake
while eight continued with the incorrect papers suggests a lack of
effective communication between NTA, the centre-coordinators and
the banks involved in the distribution process.
42. Secondly, the use of e-rickshaws for transporting question papers
to examination centres raises concerns about the security and
reliability of paper-handling procedures. E-rickshaws are relatively
unsecured and lack proper monitoring, making them unsuitable for
the secure transit of sensitive examination materials. This method
might be vulnerable to theft, tampering, and mishandling, posing a
serious risk to the integrity of the examination process. Although no
lapses on this count have emerged this year, the possibility of such
lapses is enough to warrant a change in the mode of transportation.
43. Thirdly, the use of private courier services for transporting examination
materials introduces variability in handling standards and may not
ensure the same level of security as official channels. Proper protocols
and accountability measures need to be in place to ensure that such
services maintain the highest standards of security and reliability.
44. Fourthly, CCTV surveillance is essential for monitoring activities and
ensuring that all procedures are followed correctly. Any deficiency
makes it challenging to prevent, detect, and address any irregularities
or breaches that may occur during the examination process.
ii. The marks awarded for one of the questions must be
revised because only one of the options is the correct
answer.
45. One of the questions in the NEET (UG) 2024 exam was as follows:
“Given below are two statements:
Statement I: Atoms are electrically neutral as they contain
an equal number of positive and negative charges.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 71

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

Statement II: Atoms of each element are stable and emit
their characteristic spectrum.
In 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.”
46. We have not specified the question number, as both the question
and the options may vary across different series of the question
paper. Initially, the NTA answer key indicated that the fourth option
was correct.
47. Subsequently, based on representations submitted to NTA, a decision
was taken to treat both option (2) and option (4) as correct answers.
The representations highlighted that the second option was based
on an older edition of the NCERT textbook. Many candidates had
relied on the outdated textbook and accordingly, sought the award
of four marks if they had marked option (2) as the correct answer.
They also relied on the NTA Information Bulletin 2024. This bulletin
states that if a question is found to be incorrect or dropped after key
verification, all candidates will be awarded four marks, regardless
of whether they attempted the question.8 The relevant portion is as
follows:
“(vi) If none of the options is found correct or a Question
is found to be wrong or a Question is dropped then all
candidates who have appeared will be given four marks
(+4) irrespective of the fact whether the question has been
attempted or not attempted by the candidate.”
In response to the representations from aspirants, NTA amended its
answer key and awarded marks to all students who had selected
either option (2) or option (4).

8 NTA Information Bulletin 2024, Chapter 3: Examination Scheme, Clause 3.2 - Pattern of the Test.
72 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

48. Some petitioners argue that this change in marking led to unfair
advantages for some students while disadvantaging others, thereby
impacting the overall merit list and the rankings. This discrepancy
could have altered admission outcomes for many students who
narrowly missed the cut-off marks or ranks due to the inclusion of
the second option as correct. As held in Kanpur University v. Samir
Gupta,9 if prima facie a question is considered ambiguous, such a
question should be deleted. This precedent emphasizes the need
for clarity and precision in competitive examinations to maintain
fairness and transparency.
49. On 22 July 2024, this Court requested the Director of IIT, Delhi
to constitute a three-member committee to determine the correct
answer. The Director and Professor from the Department of Energy
Science & Engineering, reported on 23 July 2024, that a committee
had been formed. This committee consisted of Professors Pradipta
Ghosh, Aditya Narain Agnihotri, and Sankalpa Ghosh from the
Department of Physics.
50. The expert team constituted has opined that option (4) is the correct
answer. This answer reads as follows:
“(4) Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect.”
51. The committee formed at IIT, Delhi has unequivocally clarified the
correct answer, confirming that option (4) is indeed accurate. This
option was initially identified by the NTA as the correct answer.
Moreover, options (2) and (4) are mutually exclusive, meaning they
cannot both be correct simultaneously.
52. The team of experts from IIT Delhi has unequivocally opined that the
fourth option (noted above) is the one and only correct answer to the
question. NTA did not dispute this during the hearing. We accept the
report of IIT, Delhi. The contention based on the NTA Information
Bulletin is fallacious. The question itself was not incorrect. Nor was
it the case that none of the options were correct. Further, this is
not a case where there were two correct answers. Only one of the
answers was correct. The issue arose due to the discrepancy in an
outdated version of the textbook, not due to an inherent flaw in the

9 [1984] 1 SCR 73 : 1983 4 SCC 309.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 73

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

question or the absence of correct options. NTA’s decision to award
marks for both options was not justified. The validity of the question
is upheld, and NTA must treat only option (4) as the correct answer.
53. This is crucial to ensure the integrity and fairness of the examination
process. The recalibration of ranks is necessary to reflect the true
merit of the candidates, correcting any distortions caused by the earlier
inclusion of an incorrect answer. This action will restore confidence in
the examination system, ensuring that all candidates are evaluated
on an equal and just basis. It also addresses the grievances of those
who may have been unfairly disadvantaged, thus upholding the
principles of equity and transparency in competitive examinations.
iii. There is no conflict of interest with the Director of IIT,
Madras analysing the data in this case
54. In response to the query of this Court as to whether it was possible to
use data analytics to identify suspicious cases or suspicious trends in
the results of the NEET, the Union of India filed an affidavit answering
the question. Pursuant to the order of the Court, the Department
of Higher Education, Ministry of Education made a request to the
Director, IIT Madras to undertake comprehensive data analytics of
the results of all candidates who appeared in the exam this year. A
set of parameters was also requested to be devised.
55. IIT, Madras then analysed the data. The affidavit states that this was
done with the help of Python for data processing, PostgreSQL for
data storage and Metabase for analysis after receiving the relevant
data and information from NTA. The executive summary of the report
prepared by IIT Madras is as follows:
“̌Executive Summary
a. The marks distribution follows the bell-shaped curve
that is witnessed in any large-scale examination indicating
no abnormality.
b. City wise and center wise analysis was done for two
years (2023 and 2024) to find out if there are any abnormal
indications. The Analysis is carried out for the Top 1.4
lakh ranks given that the total number of seats across the
country is around 1.1 lakhs.
74 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

c. This Analysis is granular enough to indicate any
abnormality, had a large number of students gotten into
high ranks (top 5%), due to malpractice or if students from
a particular exam-centre or city were benefitted.
d. The analysis shows that there is neither any indication
of mass malpractice nor a localized set of candidate being
benefitted leading to abnormal scores.
e. There is an overall increase in the marks obtained by
students, specifically in the range of 550 to 720. This
increase is seen across the cities and centres. This
is attributed to 25% reduction in syllabus. In addition,
candidates obtaining such high marks are spread across
multiple cities and multiple centers, indicating very less
likelihood of malpractice.”
56. Counsel for the petitioners expressed concerns about the
independence and impartiality of the Director of IIT, Madras who
signed the report analysing the data. The concern stemmed from
the position held by the Director in the General Body of NTA.
57. By a notification dated 6 March 2019, the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (which is now the Ministry of Education) constituted
the General Body of NTA. The relevant part of the notification is
extracted below:
“(iii) Three Directors of IITs in their ex officio capacity as
the present, preceding and succeeding chairpersons of
JEE (Advanced) – Member”
58. Since JEE (Advanced) was conducted by IIT Madras this year, the
Director of the institution was the ex-officio member of the General
Body by virtue of the notification referred to above. The bye-laws
of NTA define the role of the General Body inter alia as providing
overall policy guidance and direction, considering and approving the
balance sheet and annual audited accounts presented by the Member
Secretary along with the remarks of the Managing Committee,
considering and approving the annual report, recommending the
annual action plan and budget for the each year, nominating members
of the General Body in terms of the relevant rules, delegating any
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 75

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

of its powers to the Managing Committee or the Member Secretary,
creating or abolishing posts in NTA, determining the procedure for
appointment of persons to various posts, appointing committees or
sub-committees for any purpose, demanding and receiving fees of
the exams and tests conducted by NTA, and acquiring properties
and investing surplus funds.
59. The functions of the Managing Committee are also set out in the
bye-laws. They include taking all operational decisions, managing
the resources of NTA, handling its activities, monitoring the financial
position to ensure smooth income flow, provide comments or inputs
on the annual statements, annual reports, and other reports placed
before the General Body. The general superintendence, direction
and control of NTA and its income and property is also entrusted to
the Managing Committee. Significantly, the bye-laws stipulate that all
duties, powers and functions related to carrying on the objectives of
NTA shall only be exercised or performed by the Managing Committee.
The deliberations of the Managing Committee are required to be
reported to the General Body from time to time and the former is
required to work in terms of the policy laid down by the latter.
60. From a comparison of the functions of the Managing Committee with
those of the General Body, it is evident that the General Body is
responsible for supervising the administration of NTA and exercising
general oversight of its functioning while the Managing Committee is
in charge of its day-to-day administration. Members of the General
Body would not, it appears, have a hand in formulating the detailed
protocol for the conduct of every examination or in responding to
concerns that arise in real-time. Further, the current Director of
IIT Madras, Prof. V Kamakoti nominated Prof. A Gopalakrishna to
attend the most recently held meeting of the General Body, on 29
September 2023. The last meeting Prof. Kamakoti attended was on
29 December 2022. A combination of all these factors (including the
fact that he is merely an ex officio member of the General Body)
lead us to the conclusion that the report of the Director of IIT Madras
cannot be faulted on the ground of bias. In any event, in the interests
of justice and fairness, the Court has independently considered the
data placed on record before reaching a decision on whether the
petitions in this case ought to be allowed.
76 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

iv. There is no evidence to indicate a systemic leak as on date
a. Position of law
61. The facts of this case and the resultant issue before this Court do not
call for the development of new legal principles. It is settled law that
the cancellation of an examination, either for the purposes of gaining
admission into professional and other courses or for the purpose of
recruitment to a government post, is justified only in cases where
the sanctity of the exam is found to be compromised at a systemic
level. Courts may direct the cancellation of an examination or approve
such cancellation by the competent authority only if it is not possible
to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones.
62. In Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission,10 the
recruitment process concerning appointment to various educational
services posts in Uttar Pradesh was cancelled. The process consisted
of two stages – a preliminary written examination and an interview.
Only those candidates who scored high marks in the former were
invited to participate in the latter. In that case, mistakes in data entry
resulted in some candidates who scored high marks being left out
of the interview process even as other candidates who scored low
marks were interviewed and even selected. Upon realising this error,
the State Public Service Commission cancelled the entire recruitment
process. The High Court of Allahabad upheld this decision. The
appeal against the decision of the High Court was allowed by this
Court. This Court found that there was no justification for cancelling
the written examination, considering that the errors were confined
to the interview process. It found that a more appropriate course of
action would have been to set aside the selection of candidates and
conduct a fresh set of interviews on the basis of the written exam
which had already taken place. Hence, in that case, the Court was
of the opinion that it was not a suitable course of action to cancel
an examination when no systemic issues persisted. Although not
expressly stated by the Court, a proper appreciation of the decision
leads to the conclusion that it considered whether a fresh examination
was proportionate to the nature of grievance and the extent to which
the integrity of the exam was vitiated.

10 [1989] Supp. 2 SCR 124 : (1990) Supp SCC 692
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 77

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

63. From the observations of this Court in Bihar School Examination
Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha,11 it can be seen that the number
or proportion of students who can be believed to have indulged in
malpractice is a relevant factor in deciding cases such as the present
one. The relevant observations are extracted below:
“13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is
being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the
conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of
them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging
any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the
examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held …”
64. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar
Samiti,12 the Board concerned with the exam in that case cancelled
the exam upon receiving a report from a Naib Tehsildar who had
visited the exam centre. He found that the students were copying
even before the question paper was distributed and that they were
permitted to enter the exam hall with their books and other material.
The report also stated that the invigilators and supervisors did nothing
to prevent the students from copying. This Court found that the Board
was left with no alternative but to cancel the exam and that it was
exceedingly difficult to identify the students who were committing
malpractice and those who were not.
65. In Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board,13
the Court analysed multiple judgments related to the issue before
us and made the following pertinent observations on the scope of
judicial review in such proceedings:
“56. The decisions in Railway Recruitment Board [All India
Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6
SCC 614 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 293] , Gohil [Gohil Vishvaraj
Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 13 SCC 621 : (2018) 1
SCC (L&S) 80] and Kalaimani [State of T.N. v. A Kalaimani,
(2021) 16 SCC 217 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1002] all go
to emphasise that a recruiting authority is entitled to take

11 [1970] 3 SCR 963 : (1970) 1 SCC 648
12 (1998) 9 SCC 236
13 [2021] 2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631
78 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

a bona fide view, based on the material before it, that
the entire process stands vitiated as a result of which a
fresh selection process should be initiated. The integrity
of the selection process cannot be lightly disregarded by
the High Court substituting its own subjective opinion on
the sufficiency of the material which has been taken into
account by the decision making authority. Undoubtedly,
fairness to candidates who participate in the process is an
important consideration. There may be situations where
candidates who have indulged in irregularities can be
identified and it is then possible for the authority to
segregate the tainted from the untainted candidates.
On the other hand, there may be situations where the
nature of the irregularities may be manifold and the
number of candidates involved is of such a magnitude
that it is impossible to precisely delineate or segregate
the tainted from the untainted. A considered decision of
the authority based on the material before it taken bona
fide should not lightly be interfered in the exercise of
the powers of judicial review unless it stands vitiated on
grounds of unreasonableness or proportionality.”
66. The purpose of testing whether the integrity of the exam has been
compromised at a systemic level is to ensure that the cancellation
of the exam which has already taken place and the conduct of a
fresh examination is a proportionate response.14 This is also why
courts are required to assess the extent of the use of unfair means
and separately, consider whether it is possible to separate tainted
and untainted candidates. A holistic view must be taken.
67. In arriving at a conclusion as to whether an examination suffers
from widespread issues, courts must ensure that allegations of
malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record,
including investigative reports, point to that conclusion. There
must be at least some evidence to allow the Court to reach that
conclusion. This standard need not be unduly strict. To elaborate, it
is not necessary for the material on record to point to one and only

14 In this regard, see our analysis of Anamica Mishra (supra) at paragraph 62 of this judgment as well as
the observations of the Court in Rajesh PU (supra) at paragraph 69 of this judgment.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 79

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

conclusion which is that malpractice has taken place at a systemic
level. However, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise
as borne out by the material before the Court. In Bihar School
Examination Board (supra), this Court recognised that “sufficient
material” must be present to justify a decision to cancel examinations:
“14. … If at a centre the whole body of students receive
assistance and are managed to secure success in the
neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres
are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious
that the University or the Board must do something in
the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry
with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence
etc., before the results are withheld or the examinations
cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be
demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion
that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic
standards require that the university’s appreciation of the
problem must be respected.”
68. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. (supra), too, the Court placed
great reliance on the report of the Naib Tehsildar, which indicated
that the students in question were copying unchecked and that it was
not possible to separate them from the ones who were not copying.
69. In Union of India v. Rajesh P.U.,15 the Court was concerned
with a case where it was possible to separate the beneficiaries of
malpractice from the candidates who conducted themselves in an
upright manner. It held that there was no justification to cancel the
entire selection and emphasized the importance of the information
available to the Court as well as that of concrete and relevant material,
in the following terms:
“In the light of the above and in the absence of any
specific or categorical finding supported by any
concrete and relevant material that widespread
infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be
really said to have undermined the very process itself in
its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed

15 [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 883 : (2003) 7 SCC 285
80 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or
illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to
deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose
selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated
for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally
rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of
the selections despite the firm and positive information
that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity
could be found with reference to others, is nothing
but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be
carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by
to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the
principle of proportionality in going farther than what was
strictly and reasonably to meet the situation.”
(emphasis supplied)
b. The present case
70. That the question paper was leaked and some students indulged
in malpractice is beyond cavil. No party before the Court including
NTA disputes this. The question, however, is whether this leak was
systemic and of a nature as to vitiate the sanctity of the exam. There
are various aspects in this case which require the consideration of
the Court – the inflation of marks and ranks, the leak of the question
paper, other forms of malpractice, the reopening of the registration
window, the change of city when the form was opened for corrections,
and the award of compensatory marks to 1563 students. These are
considered in turn.
71. At the outset, it is necessary to understand certain aspects of the
NEET. It is well-known that the counselling process or the process
by which admission is gained into different medical colleges depends
on the rank of the candidate. The concept of ‘qualifying marks’ is,
however, sometimes misunderstood. The qualifying mark is arrived at
after the declaration of results each year and corresponds to the 50th
percentile. This year, the 50th percentile was identified to be at 164
marks of a total of 720 marks, for the unreserved category. Candidates
who score 164 marks or above are eligible for admission to the
MBBS course. However, not all those who have qualifying marks will
necessarily gain admission to a medical college. The qualifying marks
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 81

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

are necessary but not sufficient for admission. NTA, in its affidavit,
states that the purpose of qualifying marks is to ensure that private
colleges do not grant admission to totally undeserving candidates.
Only a small percentage of those who obtain the qualifying marks
will be allotted one of the 1,08,000 available seats. As mentioned
above, 56,000 seats of the total figure are in government medical
colleges and the remaining 52,000 are in private colleges. Hence,
it is appropriate to assess the percentage of success with respect
to the 1,08,000 available seats. Rank 1,08,000 corresponds to 577
marks and rank 56,000 corresponds to 622 marks.
72. Data analysis of results has long been an accepted method of
discerning the extent to which an examination has been vitiated. In
Bihar School Examination Board (supra), this Court considered
the validity of the decision to cancel a secondary school examination
conducted at a particular centre in Bihar due to the adoption of unfair
means by the students. At the centre in which malpractice appeared
to have taken place, the percentage of successful examinees was
about 80%. In stark contrast, the average percentage of successful
candidates at other centres was 50%. The Court also considered
the percentage of success subject-wise for thirteen subjects. The
marks detailed in the judgment indicate that the candidates performed
exceedingly well in all subjects, leading the Court to hold that the
“figures speak for themselves”. Despite this conclusion, the Court
called for some answer booklets and inspected them. Its conclusion
(which was based on the data) that the exam was vitiated was
substantiated by the answer booklets, which showed that there was
“remarkable agreement in the answers”. Data analysis is a useful
tool in the endeavour to detect malpractice.
73. The data placed before us on the percentage of success from different
centres did not account for seats which would be allotted on the basis
of reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other
Backward Castes, and Economically Weaker Sections. Were such
seats to be accounted for, the figure of 1,08,000 would almost be
halved. Hence, the data analysis errs on the side of caution.
74. Certain centres found themselves in the midst of the controversy
in this case. It was averred that malpractice was widespread in
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, Patna, Bihar, and Godhra, Gujarat. The
data provided by NTA in relation to Hazaribagh for 2024 is as below:
82 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

a. 2733 candidates in total appeared for the exam;
b. 126 candidates are within Rank 1,08,000. This indicates a
success rate of 4.6%; and
c. 58 candidates are within Rank 56,000. This indicates a success
rate of 2.1%.
Further, the statistics from previous editions of the NEET indicate
that the success rate (relative to the total number of available seats)
for Hazaribagh was 7.2% in 2022 and 6.0% in 2023. When these
figures are compared with the success rate for 2024 which is 4.6%,
no abnormality becomes evident. To the contrary, the success rate
for this year is lower than for the past two years.
75. Similar data for Patna for 2024 is encapsulated below:
a. 48,643 candidates in total appeared for the exam. The exam
was conducted in 70 centres across the city;
b. 2691 candidates are within Rank 1,08,000. This indicates a
success rate of 5.5%; and
c. 1482 candidates are within Rank 56,000. This indicates a
success rate of 3.0%.
In 2022, the success rate (relative to the total number of available
seats) was 8.9% and in 2023, the success rate was 7.7%. In Patna,
too, the success rate for this year (5.5%) is lower than for the past two
years. Even otherwise, there is no irregularity which comes to light.
76. The numbers for Godhra for 2024 are as follows:
a. 2484 candidates in total appeared for the exam. The exam was
conducted in 2 centres;
b. 21 candidates are within Rank 1,08,000. This indicates a success
rate of 0.8%; and
c. 13 candidates are within Rank 56,000. This indicates a success
rate of 0.05%.
To compare, the success rate (relative to the total number of available
seats) in Godhra was 1.5% in 2022 and 2.1% in 2023. Hence, in
Godhra, fewer candidates are within the zone in 2024. There are no
other deviations in the data which are cause for concern and which
meet the standard of indicating a systemic malaise.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 83

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

77. From the above figures, it becomes clear that there are no
abnormalities in the results for 2024 when compared with the results
for the past two years. The report of the Director of IIT, Madras also
supports the conclusion of this Court. The report stated that there
were no “abnormal indications” in the results for this year, when
compared to previous years. It also stated that “analysis shows that
there is neither any indication of mass malpractice nor a localized set
of candidates being benefitted leading to abnormal scores.” Hence,
an analysis of the results does not lend support to the case of the
petitioners who seek the cancellation of the exam. The leak of the
paper does not appear to be widespread or systemic. It appears to
be restricted to isolated incidents in some cities, which have been
identified by the police or are in the process of being identified by
the CBI.
78. We now turn to the issue of the reopening of registration for NEET.
The registration window was initially to be open from 9 February 2024
to 9 March 2024. The last date for registration was later extended to
16 March 2024. Thereafter, NTA reopened the registration portal for
two days – 9 and 10 April 2024. During the course of the hearing,
the Court enquired into the reasons for the reopening as well as
the performance of the candidates who registered when the portal
was reopened.
79. NTA stated that it received numerous representations from
candidates who raised issues related to One Time Passwords,
Aadhar authentication, uploading of documents, and payment. Other
technical issues were also raised. Further, it appears that the High
Courts of Rajasthan and Karnataka directed NTA to permit certain
petitioners, who reported such issues during their registration, to
register after the last date. NTA states that it reopened the registration
portal to permit all similarly situated candidates to submit their forms
for the exam.
80. The data submitted to the Court reflects the performance of the
candidates who registered for the exam on 9 and 10 April 2024 and
thereafter, appeared for the exam. The students who registered on
these dates but did not appear for the exam are excluded from this
analysis. Of the 8039 candidates who registered on 9 April 2024,
it is seen that five candidates were within the top 1,08,000 ranks
and two candidates were in the top 56,000 ranks. This indicates a
84 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

success rate of 0.06% and 0.02% respectively. Further, of the 14,007
candidates who appeared after having registered on 10 April 2024,
forty-four were within the top 1,08,000 ranks and twenty-three were
in the top 56,000 ranks. The success rate was 0.31% and 0.14%
respectively. This data does not indicate that an abnormal number of
candidates who registered on 9 and 10 April 2024 were successful.
We do not find that an unusually high number of students who
registered on these dates have been successful. Hence, the Court
cannot reach the conclusion that the reopening of the registration
portal led to or facilitated malpractice. There is no other material on
record at the present time which would indicate the same.
81. The next aspect which falls for consideration is that some candidates
changed their preferred cities for the exam, which in turn led to the
change of their exam centre. The petitioners averred that this was
done to enable malpractice. After changing their preferred city, 33
aspirants went to Hazaribagh, 637 went to Patna, and 24 went to
Godhra. Out of the 33 who appeared from Hazaribagh, only one
candidate’s scores placed him in a rank higher than or equal to
Rank 56,000. Thus, the success rate is 3%. Out of 637 candidates
who changed their centre to Patna, only 35 were in the top 1,08,000
ranks, indicating a success rate of 5.5%. 17 candidates scored more
than 622 marks (corresponding to Rank 56,000). The success rate
is 2.7%. Out of 24 candidates who went to Godhra, no candidate
scored more than 577 marks (corresponding to 1,08,000 rank). Here,
too, the data is not abnormal and therefore does not indicate that a
systemic breach has taken place. An unusual number of candidates
who changed their preferred cities do not appear to have a higher
rate of success. This is a facility which is intended to subserve the
interests of candidates. Therefore, the fact that some aspirants
changed their preferred cities, taken alone, cannot be considered
evidence of malpractice or of dishonest intention. The choice to appear
for the exam from a different city may be motivated by myriad factors
and the option to change the preferred city is made available every
year. Some other relevant and concrete material must be present
before the Court can infer that this led to mass malpractice.
82. The parties in the hearing also addressed submissions on a video on
Telegram (an instant messaging application) purportedly showing the
leaked paper. It was alleged that the leak took place on 4 May 2024.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 85

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

The NTA, in its affidavit, stated that the video shared on Telegram
was fabricated and the time-stamp was altered to indicate that the
leak took place before the examination date. The investigation by
CBI revealed that the images in the video were indeed doctored.
The Telegram channel itself was created on 6 May 2024 and the
paper was uploaded on 7 May 2024. Hence, there is no merit in
this allegation.
83. As for the re-exam conducted for the 1563 candidates who were
initially awarded compensatory marks, the order of this Court dated
13 June 2024 found the re-exam to be fair and justified. The issue no
longer subsists. NTA was also permitted to act accordingly following
the test which was held, by the order of this Court dated 23 July 2024.
84. Hence, sufficient material is not on record at present which indicates
a systemic leak or systemic malpractice of other forms. The material
on record does not, at present, substantiate the allegation that there
has been a widespread malpractice which compromised the integrity
of the exam. To the contrary, an assessment of the data indicates
that there are no deviations which indicate that systemic cheating
has taken place. The information before us at this stage does not
show that the question paper was disseminated widely using social
media or the internet, or that the answers were being communicated
to students using sophisticated electronic means which may prove
difficult to trace. The students who were beneficiaries of the leak
at Hazaribagh and Patna are capable of being identified. The CBI
investigation reveals the number of students who are the beneficiaries
of the malpractice at Hazaribagh and Patna at this stage. This leads
us to conclude that it is possible to separate the beneficiaries of
malpractice or fraud from the honest students. This being the case,
the Court cannot direct a re-exam.
85. In the previous section which sets out the position of law on this issue,
this Court noticed that the purpose of assessing whether the sanctity
of the exam has been vitiated at a systemic level was to facilitate
and encourage a proportional response. If it is possible to separate
the tainted candidates from the untainted ones, there would be no
justification to cancel the exam. This is because honest candidates
would be made to suffer without reason due to the actions of some
unscrupulous candidates. It is also important for the response to
malpractice to be proportionate. Ordering a re-test would disrupt the
86 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

academic schedule for the year. The delay in completing admission
will impact the availability of resident doctors to attend to patient
care in the future. Any such direction will have disproportionate
consequences for candidates from marginalised backgrounds. They
would be disadvantaged, in the event of a re-exam – neither are
desirable outcomes.
86. The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgments of this Court
in Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE16 and Sachin Kumar (supra) in support
of their contention that a re-test must be directed. It is necessary to
briefly advert to the facts and the ruling in these cases to appreciate
their applicability to the present case.
87. In Tanvi Sarwal’s case (supra), the Court adjudicated writ petitions
challenging the validity of the All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental
Entrance Test 2015 on the ground that the integrity of the exam
had been compromised by the use of unfair means. After the exam
was conducted, news reports revealed that answer keys had been
transmitted to many candidates in the course of the examination,
using electronic devices. The Court noticed the following from multiple
status reports filed by the investigating agency in that case:
a. Some arrested persons stated that they had planned to recover
Rs. 20 lakhs from each student who wished to avail of their
services to cheat in the exam;
b. One of the arrested persons was a doctor. Several answer
keys were found to be stored on his mobile phone. They were
also forwarded to two other mobile numbers using WhatsApp;
c. Vests for men and women fitted with micro SIMs were recovered
from some persons suspected to be involved in the scam;
d. Bluetooth devices were recovered from a person suspected of
facilitating cheating;
e. The question paper had been leaked in Behror, Alwar District,
Rajasthan. The arrested persons planned to communicate the
answers to the students during the conduct of the examination
using the vests fitted with micro SIMs. At least three hundred
such vests were used;

16 (2015) 6 SCC 573
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 87

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

f. The persons suspected of being the masterminds of the scam
were found to have called several people in Jharkhand, Bihar,
Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi, Maharashtra, Odisha and
Haryana, using different phone numbers;
g. 358 mobile numbers were used to transmit the answers to the
question paper to various beneficiaries across the country;
h. Some candidates admitted to having received the answers
during the exam, through electronic devices supplied to them
by the alleged offenders;
i. Until that point, forty-four beneficiaries of the leak had been
identified;
j. The investigating agency stated that it was beyond doubt that
the plan to provide answers during the exam was prepared
and executed by an organised gang with a network spreading
across the country; and
k. The Inspector General of Police, Haryana admitted that it may
not be possible to identify every single beneficiary of the leak.
88. On the basis of the information before it, the Court noted that it
could choose one of two alternatives – direct that the results of
the forty-four beneficiaries of malpractice be withheld and permit
the counselling process to proceed or direct the conduct of a fresh
exam. The Court was of the opinion that the modus operandi of the
leak made it likely that numerous candidates, apart from the forty-
four who had been identified at the time, were likely to have been
beneficiaries of that system of malpractice. It held that it was not
possible to identify all the beneficiaries of the leak. Further, it ruled
that the segregation of the forty-four identified beneficiaries of the
leak was not a viable solution because there was a possibility that
unidentified beneficiaries would stand to gain at the cost of honest
candidates. The Court, finding that the sanctity of the exam had
been compromised, cancelled the exam and directed the conduct
of a fresh exam.
89. Tanvi Sarwal’s case (supra) is distinguishable from the case before
us on many counts. First and foremost, the unscrupulous candidates
in that case used sophisticated technology including vests fitted
with micro SIMs to cheat. No such technology has come to light at
88 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

present, in this case. Second, the question paper was found to have
been shared on WhatsApp before the date of the exam. Once shared
through social media, it is exceedingly difficult to trace the journey of
a post or message or document. Here, the record at present does not
indicate that the question paper was shared on social media before
the date of the exam. Third, In Tanvi Sarwal’s case (supra), the
assistance of a gang with a nationwide network was stated to have
been taken and calls were made by the accused to persons living in
numerous states in the country. No such nationwide ring is seen at
present in this case. Fourth, the Court found that it was not possible
to separate the beneficiaries of the leak from the honest candidates.
Here, the Court has concluded that the fraudulent candidates may
be identified by the investigating agency. For these reasons, the
decision in Tanvi Sarwal (supra) does not support the case of the
petitioners. The allegations in this case are not substantiated by the
material on record.
90. In Sachin Kumar’s case (supra), the two-Judge Bench of this
Court (of which one of us, D Y Chandrachud, J., was a part) was
concerned with the recruitment process for the post of Head Clerk.
The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi cancelled
the process on the basis of certain irregularities in the conduct of
the examination. The Central Administrative Tribunal annulled this
decision of the Government. In proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the
decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal was partly affirmed.
The appeals arising from the decision of the High Court resulted in
the case before this Court.
91. In that case, a committee was appointed to conduct an enquiry into
the complaints regarding malpractice during the exam. In its report,
the committee inter alia found that a large number of candidates in
the zone of selection hailed from a small geographical area within
Delhi, a significant proportion of candidates belonged to the same
community (as indicated by their surnames), and the failure to
randomise the seating plan resulted in candidates from the same
family being seated in consecutive seats. In addition, the committee
noted that certain persons had masterminded a racket which led to
the impersonation of candidates, the leakage of question papers,
and the dilution of the processes in place to ensure the fair conduct
of the exam, including blurring of videography, faulty jammers, etc.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 89

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

92. The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi then
constituted a second committee to scrutinise candidates who were
in the zone of consideration with a view to identifying cases of
impersonation. This committee found that there were no irregularities
with the candidature of those persons who had come forth for
assessment. The Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi then cancelled the
examination, leading to the eventual challenge of his decision.
93. The question in Sachin Kumar (supra) was whether the decision to
cancel the recruitment process was justified. The Court held that the
credibility of the entire exam stood vitiated by systemic irregularities,
as highlighted by the findings of the first committee appointed by
the government. It found that the allegations made regarding the
sanctity of the exam had been substantiated by the investigation
which followed. It therefore upheld the decision of the Deputy Chief
Minister to cancel the exam and set aside the judgment of the High
Court.
94. That case, too, is distinct from the one before us. In Sachin Kumar
(supra), the material before the Court was sufficient to lead to the
conclusion that there was mass malpractice, which attacked the
integrity of the exam at a systemic level. This is indicated by the
fact that a large number of candidates in the zone of selection were
from the same concentrated geographical region and that
candidates from the same family were sitting in consecutive spots
during the exam. There was also impersonation and the coordinated
dilution of security protocols in that case. There was an abundance
of material before the Court in that case. The same cannot be said
to be true in the instant case. Hence, the ruling in that case cannot
influence the outcome in this case. Moreover, in cases such as
these, courts must take a holistic view of the facts before them and
reach an independent conclusion. Different courses of action are
appropriate in different circumstances.
F. The conduct of NTA: Cause for concern
95. While the various issues discussed until now do not lead to the
conclusion that the integrity of the NEET was vitiated at a systemic
level, the manner in which NTA has organised the exam this year
gives rise to serious concerns. The Court is cognizant of the fact that
national-level exams with participation from tens of lakhs of students
90 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

require immense resources, coordination, and planning. But that is
precisely the reason for the existence of a body such as NTA. It
is no excuse to say that the exam is conducted in myriad centres
or that a large number of aspirants appear for the exam. NTA has
sufficient resources at its disposal. It has adequate funding, time, and
opportunities to organise exams such as the NEET without lapses
of the kind that occurred this year.
96. Multiple occurrences in the conduct of the exam prompt the Court
to make these observations. The paper was leaked in Patna and
Hazaribagh. In one of the centres, the rear door of the strongroom
was opened and unauthorised persons were permitted to access the
question papers. This indicates that there is a serious lapse in security
and that security measures which are stringent and effective must
be implemented by NTA. Further, it came to light that the question
papers were sometimes transported in e-rickshaws and that the
services of private courier companies were availed of. Mr. Hooda,
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, also rightly pointed out that
NTA did not specify a time by which the OMR sheets were required
to be sealed after the conclusion of the exam. In the absence of a
stipulation in this regard, dishonest persons may tamper with the
OMR sheets even after the candidates have submitted them and
exited the exam hall. Another point of concern is that NTA relies on
persons over whom it does not exercise direct oversight to be the
invigilators for the exam. There are various methods which may
be adopted to ensure appropriate oversight over invigilators and
decrease the likelihood of the use of unfair means. All of these issues
indicate that the security protocols must be tightened to decrease the
possibility of malpractice and fraud and to lessen access by private
persons to the question papers.
97. In at least twelve centres, the question paper stored in Canara Bank
was wrongly distributed to candidates. The question paper which
should have been distributed was the one stored in SBI. In many
centres, aspirants completed the incorrect question paper and were
ultimately evaluated while in others, the relevant authorities realised
the mistake and then distributed the correct question paper. This
either indicates that the city coordinators were irresponsible and not
fit for duty or that the information as to which question paper was
to be distributed to candidates was not properly communicated to
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 91

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

them. Certainly, neither Canara Bank nor SBI appear to have been
notified as to whether the papers in their custody were to be released.
As long as the city coordinators furnished proof of authorisation,
the papers were released without question. The custodian banks
have to be informed as to whether they should release the question
papers in their possession. Had the custodian banks been informed
whether or not to release the papers in their possession, the city
coordinators would have been unable to collect the incorrect set of
question papers, even if they made an honest mistake. NTA must
consider the various possibilities and plan the protocol to be followed
after careful consideration.
98. The use of mobile applications to communicate with the relevant
parties would permit real-time communication and allow NTA to
inform the banks even a few minutes before the time at which the
city coordinator was authorised to collect the papers. This would
ensure that no unscrupulous persons from the custodian banks
can take advantage of the information made available to them.
NTA already uses a mobile application to communicate with the city
coordinators and others so it would not be difficult to communicate
with the custodian banks. Other modes of communication may be
explored and adopted, as long as the custodian banks are informed
whether to release the papers they have stored for safekeeping.
99. The highest scoring candidates in a competitive exam usually
have the option of gaining admission into the best institutions. It is
consequential in more ways than one to be a candidate who obtains
a perfect score. When the results were released, it appeared that
sixty-seven aspirants had scored a perfect score of 720 / 720. After
the removal of the compensatory marks and the conduct of the re-test
for 1563 candidates, the number of persons who had a perfect score
dropped to sixty-one. Subsequently, in the course of the hearing, we
were informed that forty-four of the sixty-one top scorers had marked
the incorrect option to the question in controversy. By its judgment
dated 23 July 2024, this Court directed NTA to treat only one of
the options as the correct answer and recompute the marks and
ranks on the basis of this revision to the answer key. The necessary
consequence of these directions is that the scores of the same forty-
four aspirants will no longer be 720 / 720. The number of scorers
with 720/720 marks then drops to seventeen. It is a matter of serious
92 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

concern that this number fell from sixty-seven to seventeen during
the course of the hearing. The intervention of the Court, reports by
the media, and representations by candidates ensured that these
changes were made in the interests of fairness and justice. However,
the system adopted by NTA should be such that just outcomes are
reached even when these external catalysts are not present. The
system must be such as to inspire public confidence.
100. Another aspect which is most unfortunate is the lack of responsible
decision-making with respect to the 1563 candidates who were
initially awarded compensatory marks. As noticed above, a committee
constituted by NTA first recommended that the compensatory marks
be awarded. However, as the controversy surrounding the award
of these marks became more prominent, a second committee
was constituted. This committee recommended the cancellation of
compensatory marks and the conduct of a re-exam in their place
for those students. A body such as NTA which is entrusted with
immense responsibility in relation to highly important competitive
exams cannot afford to misstep, take an incorrect decision, and
amend it at a later stage. All decisions must be well-considered,
with due regard to the importance of the decision. Flip-flops are an
anathema to fairness.
101. Intense competition amongst the aspirants coupled with the
commercialisation of education has led to a few towns or cities
becoming hubs for classes which train candidates for competitive
exams. While these towns or cities may have a higher rate of success
than some others, instances of malpractice at such centres should
be treated on par with any other instance. All instances of the use
of unfair means must be dealt with firmly.
102. NTA is directed to ensure that all the concerns highlighted by the
Court in this judgment are addressed. The committee constituted
by the Union Government is also requested to keep these issues
in mind while formulating its recommendations.
G. Issues in the conduct of the examination and the remit
of the committee constituted by the Union Government
103. During the hearing, the petitioners urged that there were systemic
flaws in the conduct of the examination and that a more thorough
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 93

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

procedure needs to be put in place to ensure that malpractice is
avoided. Given the crucial role of the examination in shaping the
careers of future medical professionals responsible for public health,
any compromise in the merit-based selection process jeopardizes
the quality of healthcare as well as the careers of aspirants. The
fairness and reliability of the examination system cannot be such
that public confidence is lost.
104. The formation of a committee is essential to thoroughly investigate
and address the structural issues. A dedicated committee with
suitably qualified experts can ensure a comprehensive review
of the security measures, candidate verification processes, and
the overall management of the examination. By identifying and
rectifying vulnerabilities, such a committee will help restore trust
in the examination system and implement robust safeguards to
prevent future malpractice.
105. The Court has been apprised of the fact that 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 Randeep Guleria, Member
(ii) Prof B J Rao, Member
(iii) Prof Ramamurthy K, Member
(iv) Shri Pankaj Bansal, Member
(v) Prof Aditya Mittal, Member
(vi) Shri Govind Jaiswal, Member Secretary”
106. The remit of the Committee, in addition to the tasks that it has
been entrusted with by the Union government and the NTA, shall
encompass the following:
a. Examination Security and Administration
i. Evaluate and recommend reforms in the mechanism of
administration of the exam. This includes ensuring rigorous
checks and balances at every stage, from setting the
question papers to declaring the final results;
94 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

ii. Formulate standard operating procedures17 which set out
the timelines for registration, changes to preferred cities,
the sealing of OMR sheets once candidates submit them to
the invigilator, and other processes related to the conduct
of the exam. Once adopted by NTA, the SOP must be
adhered to, to maintain the integrity of the exam;
iii. Review the process by which exam centres are currently
allotted to candidates and recommend any changes
which may be required in the interests of fairness and
transparency. The preferences of candidates may continue
to be accounted for;
iv. Recommend stricter procedures for verifying candidate
identities, if required, with a view to preventing
impersonation and ensuring that only registered and
authorized candidates are allowed to take the exams. Such
processes may include, but are not limited to, enhanced
identity checks at various stages of the exam (such as
registration, entry to the exam centre, and before the
commencement of the exam) and technological innovations
to prevent impersonation. All procedures should comply
with laws on privacy;
v. Consider the viability of comprehensive CCTV surveillance
systems at all examination centers, including real-time
monitoring and recording of all activities. The aim is to
deter and detect any malpractice or unauthorized activities
and to provide evidence in case of incidents;
vi. Review and suggest enhancements for the processes for
the setting, printing, transportation, storage, and handling
of question papers. This may include tamper-evident
packaging and using secure logistics providers to prevent
unauthorized access and leaks during critical phases.
The viability of utilizing closed vehicles with locks and
real-time tracking systems rather than e-rickshaws may
be considered;

17 “SOP”
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 95

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

vii. Consider the viability of conducting regular audits and
surprise inspections of examination centres. This is to
ensure compliance with established security protocols,
identify and address potential vulnerabilities or lapses
in the system, and ensure that all centres adhere to the
highest standards of examination security; and
viii. Recommend the development of a robust grievance
redressal mechanism. This should allow candidates to
report any irregularities or issues promptly;
b. Data Security and Technological Enhancements
i. Research and suggest advanced data security protocols,
including encryption and secure data transmission
methods. These measures should protect examination
materials from unauthorized access and potential leaks,
ensuring that all sensitive information remains secure;
ii. Recommend systems to monitor and track digital footprints
related to the examination materials. This might include
digital watermarking and tracking technologies to trace the
origin of leaked documents and identify potential breaches
in the electronic dissemination process;
iii. Consider how regularly cybersecurity audits and vulnerability
assessments must be conducted to identify and address
potential weaknesses in the electronic dissemination
and storage systems. These audits should evaluate the
effectiveness of current security measures and recommend
improvements based on the latest cybersecurity trends; and
iv. Explore technological innovations to enhance examination
security and efficiency. This could include advancements
in digital authentication, secure online platforms, and
other emerging technologies that can safeguard against
potential threats;
c. Policy and Stakeholder Engagement
i. Review and recommend updates to the policies and
SOPs of NTA to align with best practices, ensuring that
the agency is equipped to handle evolving challenges in
examination security;
96 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

ii. Establish a transparent communication strategy to keep
all stakeholders, including candidates, educational
institutions, and the public, informed about the measures
being taken to ensure the integrity and fairness of the
examination process as well as of the response of NTA
to any malpractice which is identified;
iii. Recommend the implementation of a comprehensive
communication strategy to keep all stakeholders involved in
the process — including banks, examination centres, and
logistical partners — well-informed. This strategy should
detail the protocols for secure transportation, storage, and
handling of examination materials, and ensure regular
updates on any issues or changes; and
iv. Recommend measures to address and mitigate any
socioeconomic disparities that may affect candidates’ ability
to participate in or benefit from the examination process.
This might include providing support and resources to
underprivileged candidates to ensure equal opportunities
and reduce barriers to entry;
d. Collaboration and International Cooperation
i. Consider the viability of NTA engaging in international
cooperation with examination bodies and educational
authorities from other countries to share best practices,
security measures, and innovative solutions; and
ii. Suggest the creation of a management framework to
identify, assess, and mitigate potential risks related to
examination security. This framework should include
protocols for assessing risks, contingency plans, and
strategies for dealing with unforeseen challenges that may
arise during the examination process;
e. Support and Training
i. Recommend plans or strategies for the development
and implementation of mental health support programs
for students, including counselling services and stress
management workshops. These programs should address
the psychological impact of exams and also ensure the
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 97

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

well-being of all candidates throughout the examination
process. Qualified experts from relevant fields must be
consulted for this purpose; and
ii. Consider the viability of NTA conducting comprehensive
training programs for all staff involved in the examination
process (including but not limited to question paper setters,
invigilators, and administrative personnel). These programs
should cover security protocols, ethical standards, and
the latest technology to ensure everyone involved is well-
equipped to maintain the integrity of the examination.
107. While carrying out its mandate, the committee must bear in mind the
facts and issues highlighted in Section F of this judgment.
108. The Ministry of Education constituted the committee by a notification
dated 22 June 2024. The notification stated that the report of the
committee shall be submitted within two months from the date of the
issue of the notification. This would be 22 August 2024. However, in
view of the expanded remit of the committee in terms of this judgment,
additional time may be required for a holistic report on various
aspects related to the conduct of the NEET. Therefore, the report
of the committee shall be submitted to the Ministry of Education by
30 September 2024. The Ministry of Education shall take a decision
on the recommendations made by the committee within a period of
one month from receiving the report. It shall prepare and begin to
implement a plan of action on this basis. The Ministry of Education
shall report compliance with these directions within two weeks of
taking the decision on the implementation of the recommendations.
H. Parting remarks
109. The principal issue which the Court was concerned with in this case
is whether the sanctity of the NEET was compromised this year and
whether the process should be scrapped and a fresh test should
be convened. 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
98 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of relief, the petitioners would have to seek the withdrawal of their
petitions before this Court, if any have been filed.
110. The transfer petitions at the instance of the NTA or any other party
raising the issue as regards the validity of NEET in 2024 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.
111. Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as a finding of fact in
relation to criminal proceedings arising from the leak of the question
paper or from other forms of malpractice. However, the ruling of the
Court will not be relied on to refrain from prosecuting individuals
found to have indulged in malpractice in any centres, irrespective
of whether such fraud has already been identified or is identified in
the future. Stringent action in accordance with law shall be taken
against every candidate who is detected or who may hereafter be
detected to have been the beneficiary of any malpractice.
112. List before an appropriate Bench to verify compliance with the
directions issued in this judgment.
113. The Petitions shall stand disposed of in the above terms.

Result of the case: Petitions disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan