The Supreme Court on July 22 issued a directive to the Director of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi to assemble a three-member expert committee. This committee’s purpose is to provide their expert opinion on the correct answer to a multiple-choice question within the NEET-UG 2024 exam. The National Testing Agency (NTA) had previously awarded marks for two different options to this specific question, leading to the petition challenging their decision. The Court’s order came after hearing petitioners who contested the NTA’s decision to deem two options as correct. The Court expects the expert committee to submit their findings by 12 noon on July 23rd, as reported by the legal news website LiveLaw.
The Supreme Court is currently presiding over a series of petitions demanding the cancellation of the NEET UG 2024 exam, which took place on May 5th of this year. Other requests include a re-test and a court-monitored investigation into the exam’s integrity. The hearing, led by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, will continue on July 23rd.
During the hearing on July 22nd, the Supreme Court bench made several notable observations, highlighting their concerns and approach to the issue. They emphasized the importance of adhering to the instructions provided, which emphasized the latest edition of the NCERT textbook. This led to the Chief Justice suggesting that Option 4 was the correct answer according to the latest NCERT edition, implying that those who chose Option 2 might not be eligible for full marks.
The bench also addressed concerns regarding potential exam center bias, acknowledging that students often select centers perceived as more lenient in their marking. However, they ruled that this perception alone does not justify canceling the entire exam. Regarding the allegations of paper leaks, the court questioned the evidence supporting a widespread leak across the country. They requested written submissions from lawyers advocating for a re-test, focusing on specific instances of alleged lapses and the potential for systemic failures. The court ultimately acknowledged the seriousness of the concerns, but emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support the claims of a widespread and nationwide leak.
