RTI activist accuses NTA of withholding records on 2024 NEET controversy

Pranav Jeevan has alleged that the NTA delayed responding to his RTI application for months and later denied most of the requested information, despite directions from the Central Information Commission in July 2025

Mumbai: Even as the National Testing Agency (NTA) faces intense scrutiny over the cancellation of NEET-UG 2026 following a paper leak, a Kerala-based RTI activist has accused the agency of withholding key documents linked to the 2024 NEET-UG controversy over the award and subsequent withdrawal of grace marks.

Pranav Jeevan has alleged that the NTA delayed responding to his RTI application for months and later denied most of the requested information, despite directions from the Central Information Commission in July 2025.

Pranav Jeevan, an RTI activist and former student of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, has alleged that the NTA delayed responding to his RTI application for months and later denied most of the requested information, despite directions from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in July 2025.

Jeevan had filed the RTI application on June 13, 2024, seeking details of two committees formed by the NTA during the NEET-UG controversy that year. The first, a “Grievance Redressal Committee”, had recommended awarding grace marks to 1,563 candidates who allegedly lost examination time after receiving incorrect question paper sets at six centres. Within a week, however, a separate “High Powered Committee” reportedly recommended cancelling those grace marks and conducting a re-test.

The controversy erupted after several students scored unusually high marks, including perfect 720/720 results as well as impossible scores of 719 and 718. Under the NEET marking scheme, each correct answer carries 4 marks, each incorrect answer attracts a -1, and unanswered questions receive 0 marks, making scores such as 719 and 718 mathematically impossible.

On June 6, 2024, the NTA had publicly stated that the Grievance Redressal Committee, comprising academic and examination experts, reviewed CCTV footage and other records before recommending grace marks. However, on June 13, the agency announced that a High Powered Committee had advised withdrawing the compensatory marks and holding a re-examination for the affected candidates.

In his RTI application, Jeevan sought documents such as the meeting minutes, official communications, names of committee members and reports that led to these major decisions. However, the NTA took 168 days to respond to the RTI application, he claimed. Even after the delay, most of the information was denied, citing “privacy”, “security restrictions”, and “third-party information,” he said.

“The purpose of the RTI was to understand how two committees could give completely opposite recommendations within such a short period,” Jeevan said. “Millions of students depend on exams conducted by NTA. Such decisions directly affect public trust in the examination system.”

In several replies, the NTA allegedly repeatedly referred to Section 8 of the RTI Act without clearly explaining which exemption applied to the requested information. The agency also argued that the information had been submitted to the Supreme Court in sealed envelopes and, therefore, could not be shared publicly, Jeevan said.

The matter eventually reached the CIC. In its order dated July 31, 2025, the commission observed that the NTA’s replies were “partially incorrect and incongruous” with the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the NTA to revisit several questions and provide information after removing personal details wherever necessary under Section 10 of the RTI Act. It also pulled up the agency for the delay in responding to the RTI application and asked the concerned officers to submit a written explanation, Jeevan said.

Despite the CIC’s directions, Jeevan claimed that the information is still not fully available nearly 10 months later. “This is not private, personal information,” he said. “Students deserve to know how these important decisions were taken. Transparency is necessary if public faith in competitive examinations has to be protected.”

HT reached out to the NTA with a request for comment but didn’t receive a response.