The Supreme Court is set to hear three petitions on Thursday, June 13, regarding the NEET-UG 2024 examinations, which are for admission to MBBS, BDS, and other courses. Among these petitions is one filed by the chief executive of the EdTech firm 'Physics Wallah', Alakh Pandey, concerning alleged irregularities in the examination process. Pandey has specifically challenged the random award of grace marks by the National Testing Agency (NTA) to over 1,500 candidates.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

In addition to Pandey's petition, the court will also consider pleas filed separately by Abdullah Mohammed Faiz and Jaripiti Kartheek. Pandey has requested the establishment of an expert panel under the court's supervision to investigate the examination process and results of NEET (UG) 2024.

The NEET-UG exam, conducted by the NTA on May 5 across 4,750 centers with approximately 24 lakh candidates, saw its results unexpectedly announced on June 4, earlier than scheduled. Allegations of question paper leaks and the awarding of grace marks have prompted protests and legal action in various high courts as well as the Supreme Court.

An unprecedented 67 students achieved a perfect score of 720, raising suspicions of irregularities, especially as six of these top scorers were from a center in Haryana's Faridabad. Concerns have been raised that the allocation of grace marks may have contributed to this phenomenon, with 67 students sharing the top rank.

The NEET-UG examination, vital for admissions to various medical and related courses across India, is administered by the National Testing Agency (NTA).

NTA officials, while acknowledging 63 reported cases of students using unfair means, including impersonation, cheating, and tampering with OMR sheets, have emphasized that the integrity of the NEET-UG exam has not been compromised and there has been no paper leak. Of these cases, 23 students have been debarred for varying periods, with the results of the remaining 40 candidates withheld pending further investigation. An expert panel was formed to assess each case and recommend appropriate actions, resulting in the debarment of certain candidates from taking the exam for up to three years.