Text

VANSHIKA YADAV Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

---

Facts:
the NEET (UG) 2024 examination, conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on 5 May 2024, witnessed participation from over 2.3 million candidates across 4,750 centers in 571 cities. Allegations had emerged soon after the exam regarding a question paper leak, particularly at centers in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) and Patna (Bihar). In response to these allegations, an FIR was lodged under Sections 407, 408 and 409 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, suggesting serious misconduct.
Additionally, concerns had been raised by various candidates about the presence of systemic deficiencies during the examination. These included complaints about technical glitches, inadequate infrastructure and improper exam conditions. Moreover, an ambiguous Physics question was reported, which allegedly contained two possible correct answers, further adding to the confusion and concern among students.

In response to some of these grievances, the NTA awarded compensatory marks to 1,563 candidates who were found to have experienced disruptions during the examination. However, this decision also drew criticism, with some candidates claiming it was arbitrary and lacked transparency. As a result, a writ petition was filed by Vanshika Yadav and others, seeking the cancellation of NEET 2024 and demanding a re-test.


Issues:
1.Whether the integrity of the NEET (UG) 2024 was compromised due to alleged question paper leaks and administrative shortcomings.
2.Whether the presence of an ambiguous Physics question undermined the fairness of the evaluation process.
3.Whether the compensatory marks awarded by NTA were arbitrary or justifiable.


Arguments – Petitioners' Side:
The petitioners had submitted that the NEET 2024 examination was marred by serious irregularities, including question paper leaks at specific centers. They had alleged that such breaches affected the credibility and fairness of the exam. Concerns were raised over systemic lapses, inadequate infrastructure and technical disruptions. They had also questioned the awarding of compensatory marks to a select group of candidates, calling it arbitrary and unjust. Additionally, they had expressed apprehensions about a potential conflict of interest involving IIT Madras in the data analysis process and requested the annulment of the exam followed by a re-conduct.

Arguments – Respondents' Side:
The respondents had countered that the paper leak incidents were isolated and did not indicate a broader compromise of the exam's integrity. They had stated that robust security measures were in place and the overall sanctity of the examination remained intact. The compensatory marks, they argued, were awarded transparently based on recommendations from the Grievance Redressal Committee. They had further clarified that the ambiguous Physics question was reviewed by an expert panel and resolved fairly. Lastly, they had denied any conflict of interest in the involvement of IIT Madras, affirming the credibility of their data analysis process.

Held: The Hon'ble Supreme Court acknowledged that while certain irregularities, including the leak in Patna and Hazaribagh, did occur, they did not amount to systemic compromise of the examination. It was held that re-conducting the exam would be impractical and detrimental to the interests of the larger student population.

The Court accepted the expert committee's resolution regarding the ambiguous Physics question and directed the NTA to revise the answer key accordingly. It also upheld the decision to award compensatory marks, stating it was based on reasoned recommendations.
The Court rejected the plea for annulment of the NEET (UG) 2024 and ordered the formation of a seven-member expert committee to recommend systemic reforms for future exams.
In its concluding remarks, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported to have aimed at striking a balance between fairness and practical governance. The Court was said to have acknowledged that although certain irregularities had occurred during the NEET (UG) 2024 examination —such as the question paper leak in limited centers and ambiguity in a Physics question — these issues did not amount to a systemic failure or warrant the cancellation of the entire exam. It was observed that the Court emphasized the importance of preserving the credibility of national-level exams while safeguarding the interests of over two million candidates who had taken the exam in good faith.
The Court was also noted to have upheld the decision to award compensatory marks based on the Grievance Redressal Committee’s recommendations and accepted the findings of the expert committee regarding the disputed Physics question. Further, it was held that conducting a fresh examination would not serve the larger public interest. As a way forward, the Court reportedly directed the constitution of an expert committee to suggest systemic reforms in the examination process. This judgment was seen to reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring integrity in public examinations while preventing the misuse of isolated incidents to disrupt large-scale academic processes.

---

Detail Information

Title

VANSHIKA YADAV Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of

Matter(s)

-

Councels

For the Petitioners: Mr. Narendra Hooda, Senior Advocate, and others For the Respondents: Solicitor General of India; Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate for NTA

Statement of Responsibility

DRISHTI SINGH /Shri Chintamani Smarak Vidhi Mahavidyalaya Pratapgarh Uttar Pradesh affiliated with Allahabad State University PRSU-Prayagraj

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment