The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the CBSE to not declare the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) results till June 10, observing that there were allegations of irregularities in the examination. The board was to declare the results on June 5. Around 6.3 lakh students had sat for the AIPMT exams this year.
A vacation bench headed by Justice Prafulla Pant also gave the Haryana police a week to find the real beneficiaries of the illegal practices followed in the May 3 exam. The court wants these students to be identified so they can be eliminated when the results are declared.
Over 6 lakh students appeared for the exam that was marred by large-scale cheating. It was alleged that those who cheated concealed their phones, Bluetooth devices and SIM cards, which had the answer key, in their undergarments. Large-scale irregularities, including leakage of answer keys , had come to the light earlier, with the investigators informing the court that the answer keys of 123 questions were transmitted through 75 mobile phones in states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Haryana.
The SC is hearing a batch of petitions seeking a re-examination. During a hearing last week, the top court had said it would not prefer a re-examination if the beneficiaries were identified.
However, the possibility cannot be ruled out with the Haryana government’s additional advocate general Anil Grover informing the SC that it was impossible to identify and trace all the beneficiaries.
The state submitted a status report of its probe and said it had arrested only two such students who informed the police that a similar modus operandi was used by atleast two candidates during AIPMT 2014. Both succeeded and secured admission in King George Medical College (Lucknow) and Banaras Hindu University respectively. According to the police, the mastermind, Roop Singh Dangi, behind the mass cheating is absconding.
CBSE has opposed the petitioners’ request to cancel the exam, saying the move would have a cascading effect in the admission process. “We are fully aware of the time crunch. . .but we have to balance so many things,” the bench told the petitioners.
(With agency inputs)