NEET UG 2024 | Apex Court Stays Proceedings Before Rajasthan, Calcutta & Bombay HC; Issues Notice To NTA In Transfer Petitions
In a significant development concerning the NEET-UG 2024 examination, the Supreme Court on June 20 stayed proceedings in petitions filed across Rajasthan, Calcutta, and Bombay High Courts. The Writ Petitions raised concerns over alleged paper leaks and discrepancies related to the exam conducted on May 5 this year.
The Vacation Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice SVN Bhatti passed the order while issuing notice on a transfer petition filed by the National Testing Agency (NTA). The NTA sought the transfer of these Petitions from the respective High Courts to the Apex Court for consolidated adjudication.
"These are transfer of 4 Petitions...Issue Notice, Returnable on July 8. Tag with...", the Bench said.
During the hearing, Advocate Vardhaman Kaushik, appearing for NTA, also sought a stay of proceedings before the High Court's. Kaushik highlighted that despite a previous notice on a similar transfer petition, the High Courts continued to adjudicate the matter independently.
To this, Justice Nath said, "Why do you want a stay before the High Court? Inform the High Court that notice has been issued...There may have been Petitions filed for individual issues, for answer sheets, for higher marks, or for lesser marks. Let those matters be dealt by the High Court."
"These are not those matters," the Counsel submitted.
Justice Nath then referred to the Allahabad High Court's order, where the court found that forged and fake documents were produced before the court in the context of the NEET exam.
Initially hesitant to grant a stay, the Bench acknowledged the Counsel's arguments.
Taking note of the submission, the Court opted to intervene decisively by staying the proceedings in the High Courts. The Court said, "In the meantime, further proceedings before the High Court shall remain stayed." Accordingly, all the matters are now listed for hearing on July 8, 2024.
The Court had passed similar orders in petitions filed by Alakh Pandey, alias Physics Wallah, and by Abdullah Faiz challenging the NEET-UG 2024 exam's alleged paper leak, and also petitions seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') in the matter.
On June 14, 2024, The Court had also issued notice in the petition filed by the NTA seeking a transfer of pending petitions before various High Courts alleging the malpractices in NEET-UG. The Court tagged the matter and listed it on July 8, 2024. Other transfer petitions filed by NTA were withdrawn as they were related to the grant of compensatory marks, which has already been decided by the Court on June 13, 2024.
The Court, on June 13, 2024, had allowed the recommendations by the UOI and NTA, to conduct a re-examination for the 1563 candidates who were given compensatory marks in the NEET-UG, 2024. The re-examination is likely to be held on June 25, 2024. A petition was filed by Jaripiti Kartheek under Article 32 of the Constitution raising a grievance regarding the grant of compensatory marks to 1563 candidates using a normalization formula where, at the examination centres, the candidates were given less than three hours twenty minutes to complete their exam.
The Supreme Court, on June 11, 2024, had also issued notice in the petition seeking cancellation of the NEET-UG, 2024 after the alleged paper leak and irregular results.
Previously, in May 2024, the Supreme Court had issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising the alarming issue of the leakage of the NEET UG 2024 exam paper and the ensuing maladministration in states like Rajasthan, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, etc. The PIL had asserted that these incidents have unfairly disadvantaged deserving candidates, infringing upon their fundamental right to equality and equal opportunities enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Petition is now listed on July 8, 2024.
Recently, the Calcutta High Court had also initiated action on a PIL alleging irregularities in the NEET (UG) 2024 examination. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the scoring system and argued that it would be improbable for candidates to achieve scores of 718 or 719 as per the established marking criteria.
