Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, July 22: The Supreme Court hearing petitions challenging the sanctity of the May 5 National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Undergraduates (NEET-UG) 2024 on Monday adjourned the proceedings till Tuesday after asking the director of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, to form a three-member panel to review a contentious question purported to be having multiple correct answers.
A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, have asked the IIT Director to submit the correct answer to the question to the court’s registrar by 12 noon on Tuesday and is expected to deliver its final order on the issue after submissions by the Central government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) which conduct the examinations.
During the hearing on Monday, the bench noted that the paper leak must have occurred either on May 4 or even earlier. The NTA also admitted to the court to wrong question paper distribution at some centres and added that grace marks were given to only those students whose Canara Bank question papers were withdrawn in the middle of the exam and replaced with the SBI question paper. The agency also filed an additional affidavit refuting the petitioners’ allegations of a conflict of interest involving the IIT Madras director, who prepared the data analytics report.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud was apprised that one that the question purportedly has multiple correct answers. Consequently, the NTA decided to award grace marks to certain students as a remedy. Taking cognisance of this grievance, the Bench ordered the expert opinion to be placed before it by 12 noon tomorrow.
A petitioner had alleged that the single ambiguous question having multiple correct answers have adversely affected her score-sheet. The consequences of this ambiguity, the petitioner argued, were significant in the context of a competitive exam that also has negative marking for incorrect answers. The consequence was also that 44 students, who opted for the ‘incorrect’ answer, had been awarded ‘grace marks’ and scored 720/720. The petitioner opted not to answer the question and scored 711 out of 720.
Her argument was that had the NTA refused to give marks for that question, the petitioner would have scored in higher percentiles. Instead, the NTA gave full marks to any who picked either “ambiguous” option. “…by giving marks to those who answered even ‘option 2’, you are increasing the number of toppers… (this is) her argument,” the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said.
The court, recognising the petitioner’s argument as a powerful one, pointed to the NTA’s pre-exam instruction – to follow a new, revised edition of the textbook. If ‘option 4’ is the correct answer as per the latest NCERT textbook, then how could those who answered ‘option 2’ get full marks, it asked.
To resolve this issue the court sought the opinion of experts. “We request the Director of IIT Delhi to constitute a team of three experts… requested to formulate an opinion on the correct option.” This opinion, the court said, is to be submitted by noon tomorrow.
This section of today’s hearing began with the petitioner pointing out she could not “assume there are two correct answers” and that marks would be awarded for either. It is logical, she said, there could be only one and, given negative marking, she opted to not answer rather than lose marks.
“I have done extremely well except for this question. I hold rank 311… If given four marks for this question, I will move up,” she said, citing an earlier judgement in her request to delete the question. The court then asked the NTA, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, “Why did NTA come to this conclusion… to give marks for both options?”
“Because both were possible answers…” Mr Mehta answered. This, though, immediately disputed by the petitioner. “It is not possible. Option 2 says ‘atoms of each elements are stable and emit their characteristic spectrum’. As per old NCERT textbook, it says ‘atoms of each element…’ but new book says ‘atoms of most elements’. Both can’t be correct.”
Asked by the court, the NTA said students were expected to follow the new book, which gives ‘option 4’ as the right answer. Over 4.2 lakh students selected ‘option 2′ and got four extra marks. The NTA, meanwhile, pointed to pleas from candidates from economically weaker sections. They could not afford to buy the newer books and had, therefore, studied from siblings’ older books.
The court, though, refused to buy that argument, with the Chief Justice insisting that could not explain how an incorrect answer came to be recognised as also a correct one. “You could not have treated both as correct answers. You have to choose either option… both can’t co-exist.”
And, in another significant moment, the court told the NTA, “What is worrying us is that over four lakh students got the benefit of what you have done (i.e., opting to award marks for both answers).” The larger hearing in this matter will continue Tuesday.
During the day’s hearing, the petitioners also objected to the NTA’s decision to open a 24-hour registration window on April 9, allowing an additional 24,000 students to register for NEET. They contend that people who were not able to meet the initial deadline shouldn’t be given another opportunity. The Counsel further queries how the NTA came up with the figure of 1,563 students on June 4, since on May 5, they only mentioned one facility in Sawai Madhavpur to have been given grace marks.
The court wrapped up last week’s hearing with a warning to petitioners seeking a complete re-test, saying, it would only order one if the “sanctity” of the May 5 exam had been “lost on a large scale.” “You have to show us that the leak was systematic… that it affected the entire examination… so as to warrant cancellation of the entire exam…” the court told the petitioners.
Meanwhile, in the Lok Sabha the opposition launched an all-out attack on the government over the NEET row questioning the Centre’s response to alleged paper leaks in competitive exams. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said this government would create new records in paper leaks. “Students across the country are protesting. Investigation is leading to revelations, arrests are being made. I have only one request, students will not get justice if this minister continues,” he said.
In response, Mr Pradhan said the results have been made public as per the Supreme Court’s directions. “I don’t want to do politics, but I have a list of how many paper leaks happened when Akhilesh Yadav was in charge (as Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister),” he said.
The most scathing attack from the Opposition benches came from Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi. “It’s obvious to the whole country that there is a very serious problem in our examination system. The minister has blamed everybody except himself. I don’t even think he understands the fundamentals of what is going on here,” the Congress leader said.
“This issue is there are millions of students in this country who are extremely concerned at what is going on and who are convinced that the Indian examination system is a fraud. That is what is at stake here. Millions of people believe that if you are rich, you can buy the Indian examination system. This is the same feeling people in the Opposition have,” he said, asking what the government is doing to fix this issue at a systemic level.
Hitting back, Mr Pradhan said he has the support of the people in his constituency and does not need a certification of intelligence from anyone in Parliament. “Lies will not become truth if you shout. The country’s examination system has been called rubbish. There cannot be a more unfortunate statement by the Leader of the Opposition. I condemn this.”
Responding to the Opposition’s allegations, the minister said the NTA has conducted more than 240 exams and over 5 crore students have appeared in them. “There is no evidence of the paper leak in the last seven years,” he said, adding that the Centre’s was “hiding nothing.”
