Data analysis key in Supreme Court’s verdict on NEET breach
A bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, examined the allegations surrounding NEET, noting that while there were incidents of malpractice, these issues did not rise to a level that would justify the cancellation of the entire exam.
Resting its decision on a thorough analysis of data, legal principles and the practical implications of ordering a re-examination, the Supreme Court on Friday released its detailed judgment concluding that there was no systemic breach in the conduct of the NEET-UG 2024, despite allegations of malpractice, including the leakage of question papers.
A bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, examined the allegations surrounding NEET, noting that while there were incidents of malpractice, these issues did not rise to a level that would justify the cancellation of the entire exam.
“The facts of this case and the resultant issue before this Court do not call for the development of new legal principles. It is settled law that the cancellation of an examination...is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the exam is found to be compromised at a systemic level,” stated the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Emphasising that such drastic measures are warranted only when it is impossible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones, the court pointed out that it is possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice or fraud from the honest students in the present instance. “This being the case, the court cannot direct a re-exam,” it asserted.
A significant portion of the judgment was devoted to analysing data from various examination centres that had been accused of malpractice. The bench scrutinised success rates from these centres, comparing them with data from previous years to identify any abnormalities.
For instance, in Hazaribagh, a centre that was under heavy scrutiny for paper leak, the success rate for candidates within Rank 108,000 was 4.6% in 2024, compared to 7.2% in 2022 and 6.0% in 2023. The court found that the success rate for 2024 was actually lower than in previous years, indicating no abnormality or systemic breach. “From the above figures, it becomes clear that there are no abnormalities in the results for 2024 when compared with the results for the past two years,” it noted.
Similarly, the data from Patna and Godhra, other centres under scrutiny for paper leak and issues with OMR sheets, also did not reveal any systemic irregularities. In Patna, the success rate for 2024 was 5.5%, lower than 8.9% in 2022 and 7.7% in 2023. In Godhra, the success rate for 2024 was 0.8%, down from 1.5% in 2022 and 2.1% in 2023. The bench concluded that these figures did not indicate any systemic issues. “There are no other deviations in the data which are cause for concern and which meet the standard of indicating a systemic malaise,” the judgment held.
The report from the director of IIT-Madras supported the court’s conclusions. The report found “no abnormal indications” in the results for 2024 compared to previous years, stating that “analysis shows that there is neither any indication of mass malpractice nor a localized set of candidates being benefitted leading to abnormal scores”.
Another aspect considered by the court was the reopening of the registration window, which had raised concerns about potential malpractice. The registration window was initially open from February 9 to March 9, 2024, and was later extended to March 16, 2024. However, NTA reopened the registration portal for two additional days -- April 9 and 10, 2024 -- citing technical issues faced by candidates.
The petitioners argued that this reopening facilitated malpractice, but the court found no evidence to back this. The data revealed that the success rates for candidates who registered during the reopened window were not abnormal. Of the 14,007 candidates who appeared after registering on April 10, 44 were within the top 108,000 ranks, and 23 were in the top 56,000 ranks, with success rates of 0.31% and 0.14%, respectively.
Addressing concerns about candidates changing their exam centres, which some argued was done to facilitate cheating, the bench relied again on data analysis that did not reveal any abnormal success rates for candidates who changed their centres. “The choice to appear for the exam from a different city may be motivated by myriad factors...Some other relevant and concrete material must be present before the Court can infer that this led to mass malpractice,” it held.
The bench also cited lack of evidence to show that the question paper was disseminated widely using social media or the internet, or that the answers were being communicated to students using sophisticated electronic means which may prove difficult to trace.
“The students who were beneficiaries of the leak at Hazaribagh and Patna are capable of being identified. The CBI investigation reveals the number of students who are the beneficiaries of the malpractice at Hazaribagh and Patna at this stage. This leads us to conclude that it is possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice or fraud from the honest students,” it held.
The judgment emphasised the importance of a proportionate response to malpractice. Ordering a re-exam, the court noted, would have disrupted the academic schedule. “The delay in completing admission will impact the availability of resident doctors to attend to patient care in the future. Any such direction will have disproportionate consequences for candidates from marginalised backgrounds,” it said.