In the State of Kerala vs T P Roshana case (1979), Justice V R Krishna Iyer wrote, “The rule of law should not petrify life or be inflexibly mulish. It is tempered by experience, mellowed by principled compromise, informed by the anxiety to avoid injustice and softens the blow within the marginal limits of legality. That is the karuna of the law.”
He went on to add, “Nor is law unimaginative, especially in the writ jurisdiction where responsible justice is the goal. The court cannot adopt a rigid attitude of negativity and sit back after striking down the scheme of government, leaving it to the helpless government caught in a crisis to make do as best as it may, or throwing the situation open to agitational chaos to find a solution by demonstrations in the streets and worse.” In the recent National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) case, the Supreme Court has delivered “responsible justice” in the spirit Justice Krishna Iyer highlighted.
The issue of capitation fees in medical and engineering admission is of grave concern. According to a 2015 estimate, capitation fees were the second highest generator of black money in India. The court’s dealings of the issue date back to Unnikrishnan (1993), TMA Pai Foundation (2002), Islamic Academy (2003), P A Inamdar (2005) and CMC Vellore (2013), which the SC reviewed to hold NEET constitutionally valid.
Though transparent medical colleges won back a measure of public trust, the recent question paper leaks in Patna and Hazaribagh rocked parliament and shook students’ confidence. The SC was moved by students and coaching institutes seeking cancellation of this year’s exam alleging systemic breach and discrepancies. The bench headed by the Chief Justice gave an opportunity to all parties, analysed datasets, took advice from external experts, considered the future of students and finally set the house in order.
The total number of MBBS seats across India is 1,08,000 (56,000 in government colleges), for which 23.33 lakh students appeared this year in tests conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) in 13 languages at 4,750 centres in 570 cities. Then news of the paper leak and compensatory marks to around 1,563 students shattered people’s confidence. The SC upheld the NTA’s call to cancel the grace marks and offer optional retests to the 1,563.
The CBI’s probe of the paper leak and the education ministry’s appointment of an expert committee to reform the NTA were efforts of a government not willing to compromise the students’ aspirations. Cognisant of these, the three major issues handled by the SC were—widespread malpractice in exams, two correct answers for one question and a systemic nationwide breach.
On the issue of ranking discrepancies across centres due to localised malpractices, the education ministry sought IIT Madras’s help. Using data analytics, the IIT Madras report did not find abnormalities in rank profiles across centres and the SC ordered the display of ranks across centres. When the NTA released the results, it was noticed that the top 100 candidates came from 95 centres in 56 cities.
The report also suggested no abnormalities in the top 1.4 lakh ranks. When compared to 2022 and 2023, the increase in the number of students scoring 560-720 was attributed to easier syllabus. The SC also accepted an IIT Delhi expert committee report that found one correct answer to a disputed question and scores were changed without compromising the results’ integrity.
On the possibility of a systemic breach, the SC’s analysis delved deep with the help of CBI’s interim report and the IIT Madras report. Some startling revelations are worth highlighting. The success rate of the three suspect centres—Patna, Hazaribagh and Godhra—provided no conclusive evidence of a systemic malaise.
On the contrary, the success rate of students in 2022 and 2023 at these three centres—Patna (8.9 percent and 7.7 percent), Hazaribagh (7.2 percent and 6 percent) and Godhra (1.5 percent and 2.1 percent)—was higher than the 2024 rates of 5.5 percent, 4.6 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively. A clear absence of localised malpractices.
The SC also analysed data on the alleged malpractice of students who registered during the extended time window and those who changed centres to these three; it found the success rates did not suggest malpractice. The SC also negated the theory of a paper leak over Telegram on May 4, as the CBI found the Telegram video was doctored and time-stamped after the exam. The top court ascertained the ‘tainted’ 155 students (and more later) didn’t receive any benefits till the CBI probe was complete.
The court also analysed previous instances of exam-related malpractices in the cases of Anamica Mishra vs UP Public Service Commission (1990), Union of India vs Rajesh P U (2003), Tanvi Sarwal vs CBSE (2015), and Sachin Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (2021) before delivering its well-reasoned order.
Allegations of exam-related malpractice are not exclusive to NEET. But that doesn’t justify the NTA’s mishandling, on which the SC came down heavily, devoting one chapter to not only highlight the agency’s loopholes but to also widen the scope of the expert committee to reform the body.
Only after an exhaustive factual and legal analysis did the SC conclude an absence of systemic breach and localised deficiencies, and set right the evaluation flaws in NEET 2024. The court delivered, in Justice Krishna Iyer’s words, “responsible justice”, bringing cheers to students and parents and a much-required policy boost to NEET.
(Views are personal)
(vaidhya@sastra.edu)
S Vaidhyasubramaniam | Vice-Chancellor and Tata Sons Chair Professor of management, SASTRA (Deemed) University
