NEET UG 2024: Supreme Court asks Centre, NTA for details on backup question papers stored at Canara Bank

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) to furnish details about the use of question paper set stored at Canara Bank branches for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test undergraduate exam 2024 (NEET UG 2024). .While one set of question papers were stored at State Bank of India (SBI), another set of question papers were stored ta Canara Bank branches. The Canara bank set was supposed to be backup in case of any discrepancy or leak of SBI question paper set. Despite that, the Canara bank paper was apparently used in certain centres. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra today asked the NTA to furnish details about the same."Tell us at how many centres were the Canara bank papers distributed. Out of those centres, were the correct question booklets replaced. At how many centres when questions evaluated had Canara bank answer booklets and then once the Canara bank papers were evaluated, how did the candidates fare there? Why was the answer key of Canara bank paper not disclosed. How did Canara bank give the papers with the letter of authorization and who issues this letter," the CJI asked.This was after Senior Advocate Narendar Hooda, appearing for the petitioners, said that a school at Jhajjar had distributed Canara bank set instead of SBI set.The Court was hearing a batch of petitions relating to alleged irregularities including allegations of mass question paper leaks of this year's National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test undergraduate exam (NEET-UG).Some of the petitioners have sought a re-exam on the said ground.During the hearing today, the petitioners maintained that the leak was widespread and hence, a retest should be held.However, the Central government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) opposed the same.Hooda said that there was a systemic failure by the NTA and the question paper leak was widespread."This is a systemic failure. A girl who fails for 12 board exam in Gujarat goes all the way to Belgavi and gets 705 in NEET and CBSE syllabus is completely aligned with NEET," Hooda said.Specifically on the systemic failure, Hooda said,"In this exam there was a complete systemic failure. No address verification. There was no CCTV camera monitoring at any of the locations. There has been a live monitoring they say but I demolish it by saying that a wrong question paper was distributed in Sawai Madhopur and there was no surveillance. It was on social media they got to know about the wrong question paper."However, the NTA counsel said that the leak was a limited one and the petitioners were trying to mislead the Court.The petitioners concluded their arguments today. The NTA and the Central government will argue tomorrow.Pertinently, the Bench ordered Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi to constitute a committee of experts to resolve pending confusion regarding one of the questions in the NEET paper - question no. 19."Four options were there out of which one had to be selected. In order to resolve the issue we are of the view that an expert opinion be sought from IIT Delhi. We request IIT Delhi to constitute a team of three experts of the subject concerned. The expert team shall formulate its opinion on the question and send the opinion to the registrar general of this court by July 23, 12 noon. The registrar general shall forward this order to IIT Delhi today itself for an expeditious step for preparation of opinion as stated above," the Court ordered..BackgroundThe NEET-UG exam this year was marred by allegations of mass question paper leaks and cheating.Both the Central government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) which conducted the exam have argued against cancelling NEET 2024.The Central government has said on affidavit a data analytics study indicated there were no abnormalities and that the chances of mass malpractices having taken place are unlikely.The NTA's reply claimed that the time stamp of a video cited by some of the petitioners to claim that a mass paper leak had happened a day before the May 5 exam, was edited to create a "false impression of an early leak."During the hearing of the matter on July 18, the Court had remarked that the leak of question paper of NEET UG 2024 prima facie seemed to be a limited one and not a widespread one on a large scale.Therefore, it had expressed doubts over whether the Court can cancel the exam and order a reexam on the basis of such a limited leak.The Court had said that going by the evidence and the timeline of events, it was unlikely that a mass leak had happened and it seemed that the wrongdoing was limited to two cities - Patna and Hazaribagh.The Court has also ordered the National Testing Agency (NTA) to publish the marks obtained by all 23 lakh candidates who took the exam..Hearing Today.When the case was heard on Monday, Senior Advocate Narendar Hooda, who was appearing for the petitioners, said that while the NTA published the results of all candidates in compliance with the Court's direction, All India ranks and serial numbers of the exam centres were not published."They have withheld All India ranks and serial numbers of the exam centres. They have given 5,000 pdfs in the name of data declaring results," he said."When I said question paper was taken by e-rickshaw, the centre said it was OMR sheets," Hooda said.The Court said that while it is an established fact that question papers were ferried using e-rickshaw, what needs to be examined is whether data available points to a widespread leak. "Question paper ferried by e rickshaw is an established fact but the little nuance is that the picture that was distributed was of the OMR sheet and not the question paper. Let Let us focus on the heart of the matter. Tell us what emerges from the data," the CJI said.Hooda then maintained that the leak was the handiwork of a professional gang and not a one-off instance of a peon leaking the paper."Let me sum it up on the leak part and the manner of conducting the entire exam is brittle that it does not inspire confidence and that at every stage there is a possibility of leak. They admit that there is a leak, they admit that dissemination happened on WhatsApp. Bihar Police investigation statements say that leak was on May 4 and was prior to the deposit of question papers with respective bank. The leak is handiwork of a gang who have worked previously also in such cases and not the case of a peon leaking one question paper etc. Bihar police was directed that all materials should be placed including all material recovered, case diary, report etc," he said..The Court then proceeded to examine the statements of witnesses recorded by Bihar Police.After the examining the statement of one Amit Anand, the Court remarked that it indicated that the leak happened before May 4. "This indicates that the students were asked to memorize on evening of 4th May and that means leak happened before May 4," the CJI said."The probe has been botched up by Government of India," Hooda weighed in.Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, objected to the same. "Let us not say Government of India and all...Please see the statement of Amit Anand recorded by Economic Offences wing. It is more detailed," he said. "His statements are at variance in two places. First statement indicates that leak was on May 4 evening and then again his statement says May 5," the CJI observed.The SG maintained that the leak was not widespread and the data also pointed towards a limited leak."We have done an exercise of what is the success rate of this particular centre, city and State and compared it to 2022 and 2023 and there is no abnormality (Bihar)," The SG said said."We have to see that if the leak is localized and see that paper was leaked at 9 am and solved by 10:30 am. If we do not believe this.." the CJI remarked. He then told the petitioner,"You have to show us that the leak was beyond Hazaribagh and Patna.. show us how widespread is it. From CBI's third report we know where the printing press was located. We do not want to say the location here.".A discussion the followed on the question papers given in various centres - whether it was question paper set stored at State Bank of India (SBI) or at Canara Bank. "I have seen the video of the principal of Hardayal school in Jhajjhar where she has said on video that Canara bank paper was given. There was no delay," Hooda said."So it was not like it midway SBI paper was given," the CJI asked."No," said Hooda. "So centre in-charge gets paper from both banks," the Bench queried."No, city in charge is informed which bank to take it from," the SG said."So everyone given grace marks in Jhajjar? Are the banks not informed about this. How did Jhajjar in charge go to Canara bank and get the papers at all when SBI has to be distributed? so candidate wrote entire exam in Canara bank papers," the CJI remarked."So over 3,000 students got Canara bank papers. All over India, it has happened in 8 centres," Hooda said. "Difficulty level is modulated to be the same of both the papers," the NTA counsel contended. "How many students in 8 centres," the CJI asked."3,700 students approximately," Hooda replied."Why were they given grace marks.. it is not like correct paper was given midway.. students were never given SBI bank papers," the CJI said. "But in Jhajjar, they wrote full papers and in some centres incorrect paper was also withdrawn and SBI papers were given," NTA counsel "In some centres, they wrote the full exam based on Canara bank question paper. In Jhajjar, I received the instructions now. Jhajjar has 3 centres. In one Canara paper was attempted and students were not disturbed. In the remaining two, realising the mistake, paper was taken back halfway and new paper was given. Thus students said they did not get full time and it was true," the SG said."Why grace marks then," the CJI persisted."It was decided that there was a CLAT judgment which says if time available is less for students then grace marks in given and then it was cancelled and retest was held," the SG replied.."On June 4, they declared only SBI answer key and no key for Canara bank papers," Hooda pointed out."Was grace marks to only those who got SBI papers midway," the CJI asked. "It was for them who were subsequently given the correct papers," the NTA counsel clarified."So, eight centres across India where wrong papers were given," the CJI further sought clarification."Yes. 3,300 students were allowed to continue.. So now the question is on June 4 they declared SBI answer key and then how was Canara bank answers evaluated and how were these 3,000 students examined," Hooda demanded.The CJI then sought details from NTA with respect to distribution of Canara Bank question paper sets."Tell us at how many centres were the Canara bank papers distributed. Out of those centres, were the correct question booklets replaced. At how many centres when questions evaluated had Canara bank answer booklets and then once the Canara bank papers were evaluated, how did the candidates fare there? Why was the answer key of Canara bank paper not disclosed. How did Canara bank give the papers with the letter of authorization and who issues this letter," the CJI asked."At two centres, Canara bank papers were given and centre coordinator realised the mistake and then SBI papers were given," the NTA counsel said. "Why did he not withdraw the paper from the other centre," the Bench demanded. "Time lapse may be the only reason. We will prepare a note on all these 6 questions," the NTA counsel said..Hooda said that there was a systemic failure while the NTA alleged that the petitioners were trying to mislead the Court. "Give us a note during the afternoon in one short paper and we will record it. So Hardayal school grace marks were given and only in that school?" the CJI asked."Yes only in that school because in other centres the loss of time was compensated by centre itself and extra time was given," the NTA counsel stated."Giving some examples here and there will not solve the problems of showing that this leak was all over India. ...Come out of Jhajjar first," the SG submitted.Hooda then cited examples of how students' rank changed drastically after retest."This is about a systemic failure and that is what we are pointing. A student who got rank 68 with 719 marks in Hardayal school. After retest, the rank is 58,000 and another student who got a rank of 69 with 718 marks now has a rank of 39,000. This is the status," Hooda contended.He also highlighted one incident where a girl who had failed in her plus two examination cracked NEET."A girl who failed in 12th class has cracked the exam. There is absolutely no system to verify the change of centre etc," Hooda said. He also raised suspicions about centres in cities Kota and Sikar."There are some centres which are doing well - Kota and Sikar," he said."So if I am from Sikar, can I choose any centre where I want to appear.. any process to verify residence etc? No document needed for the proof of residence? This is not a change but choice of centre," the CJI asked."Absolutely nothing, just select the option," Hooda said. "When it is selected, then is any document needed," the CJI asked. "We will verify and submit it," the SG replied..Hooda then gave details of students who qualified from certain centres in Sikar and Rajkot."Now you can see how the centres acing (NEET) are closely concentrated in Sikar. There is also a centre code in Rajkot where there are 1,900 students and 12 students scored 700.. 115 students scored above 650. In Sikar, it had 1,000 students and 8 are above 700, 69 students scored above 650 and 241 got above 550. Also city coordinators are owners of these schools and these are private schools and invigilators are the teachers of these private schools and it cannot be ruled out that there could be a nexus between the coaching centres and the private schools. It is completely privatised. In sikar, there are 48 private schools who are just affiliated by CBSE not CBSE run," Hooda pointed out."Can this be a ground to cancel the exam in entirety or to cancel the exam in Sikar?" the CJI asked."How can one in 4 student get such marks," Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde asked."This is a systemic failure..A girl who fails for 12 board exam in Gujarat goes all the way to Belgavi and gets 705 in NEET and CBSE syllabus is completely aligned with NEET," Hooda said."How do you establish that the paper leak was all over India," the CJI asked."Their systems are so fragile that it was consistently compromised. They just issued cheques to videographers sitting in Delhi. Loopholes are being exploited. The OMR sheets with the representatives are for so long. What stops them from filling it and submit it," Hooda contended..He also contended that CBI's theory that the paper was leaked only on the day of the exam in the morning and students then memorised the leaked questions, is not believable, he said."Sanjiv Mukhiya is a history sheeter and gangster who is yet to be arrested. Decimation was on whatsapp and so it cannot be confined to patna only. CBI story that morning leak and then memorization is completely unbelievable," Hooda argued.Specifically on the systemic failure, Hooda said,"In this exam there was a complete systemic failure. No address verification. There was no CCTV camera monitoring at any of the locations. There has been a live monitoring they say but I demolish it by saying that a wrong question paper was distributed in Sawai Madhopur and there was no surveillance. It was on social media they got to know about the wrong question paper."Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was also appearing for the petitioners, said that the leak was not a limited one but happened on a large scale."The leak from Hazaribagh reached Patna and we do not know where all it reached. We do not know extent of leak but it definitely did not happen on May 5 and certainly a some point in the night of May 4. The criminal investigation which has gone to CBI is not from Patna or Hazaribagh but from five different states. That shows at this stage the investigator have not come to any conclusion that this was a localized leak," he said.He also said that the unusually high number of students who secured very high marks was also a major red flag. "In a competitive exam you cannot trust such an exam which turns out 61 toppers. You may have two or three people who may share or crack it. In the magic zone of 650 marks and above, there are more than 50,000 students which is a major red flag," he said.In such a situation, the option is to cancel the exam."When you suspect cancer and cannot detect as a matter of precaution you go into chemotherapy because you cannot let the cancerous substances remain," he submitted.Advocate Mathews Nedumpara also said that a re-test should be held."I am asking for a re-test absolutely. Treat this exam as a prelim exam and conduct a main exam now," he stated.Advocate Tanvi Dubey appearing for a group of petitioners from Maharashtra, opposed retest."There will be severe hardships for those who worked hard for almost 8 years. That is why we do not seek a re exam," she said..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.