NEET UG: The controversial examination’s roller coaster ride in the Supreme Court

Why is NEET UG controversial?

Over the last few weeks, questions have been raised over the sanctity of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for selection of candidates for undergraduate medical seats. The examination, which was earlier conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), is now conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA),  an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education.

Prior to NEET, medical colleges and states conducted their own entrance examinations for medical UG admissions. This led to allegations of corruption and improper seat allocation. The government thus decided to centralise medical college admissions.

NEET was introduced in 2013 to streamline and democratise admissions to medical education in India, and it replaced medical entrance examinations by individual institutions and states. The validity of NEET itself was litigated upon in the Supreme Court for eight years between 2012 and 2020. The apex court upheld the examination’s validity in 2020.

However, NEET’s sanctity has been questioned time and again over the last few years; for instance a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court every year since 2016, alleging paper leak and malpractice. In addition to question paper leaks, petitions challenging NEET pertained to the provision of a wrong answer key and award of grace marks.

In 2021, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court to quash the NEET exams after allegations of paper leak emerged. These allegations were investigated by the CBI. The law enforcement agencies arrested eight people in connection with this.

The court, however, refused to cancel the examination in the interest of the lakhs of other students who had given the test. The court said “Instances of impersonation and leakage of papers cannot be to the detriment of lakhs of students who have attended the examination.”

In 2024, a slew of petitions have been filed to nullify the examination due to allegations of paper leak and other discrepancies, leading to the lack  of a level playing field .

Why are petitions filed against NEET?

Dr. Charu Mathur, a lawyer who has fought in the Supreme Court for many medical aspirants over the years points out that petitions pertaining to NEET are filed mainly for two reasons. According to her there is lack of sufficient government seats and lack of consistency in state quota policy for seats.

Over 2.3 million candidates appeared for NEET in 2024, these candidates competed to get an admission to just 1.09 lakh odd MBBS seats. Of the available MBBS seats, over 55,000 are government college seats while the others are private college seats. The fees in government medical colleges is considerably lower when compared to the fees that private colleges charge. Mathur noted that, as a result of this, the competition to obtain a government medical college seats is very high. This enables parents of aspirants to indulge in corrupt practices.

She said “Parents are ready to pay Rs 10 lakh to get a question paper rather than paying Rs 1 crore to get a private seat. All the medical aspirants are targeting 50,000 government seats owing to the low fee.”

Once the examination results are declared, the Medical Council of India (MCI) conducts counselling for allotment of seats. A second set of litigations are filed every year once counselling commences. The MCI conducts multiple rounds of counselling and seats allotted to candidates rank wise.

These college seats are spread across states, which have their own policies on admissions to students domiciled in the geographical area. For example, to avail of a domicile quota in Delhi-NCR, the candidate needs to have completed his/her class 12 education from a school located in Delhi-NCR, however for Uttar Pradesh  the candidate should be a native of the state and their father must have been a resident of the state of UP, for a minimum of 3 years. Thus, there is a lack of uniformity state policy in the state counselling.

Mathur said, “A student domiciled in UP can apply for a domicile seat even without having studied classes 11 and 12 there. However, a student in Delhi cannot do so, he has to study class 11 and 12 to apply for a Delhi seat. This gives an unfair advantage to one set of students.”

Suggesting measures to avoid litigation, Rohit Jain, managing partner at law firm Singhania and co noted that NEET and its admission should be made more transparent. He said, “There should be a grievance redressal portal all through the examination process so students don’t resort to the courts for the same.”

The 2024 NEET controversy:

The controversies surrounding the 2024 NEET examinations garnered political attention owing to the general elections. In 2024, allegations of question paper leak and discrepancies in marks made the headlines. It has been alleged that 67 students obtained a perfect score, a higher number than in previous examinations, which caused a controversy. In addition to this, the government decided to award grace marks to 1,563 candidates who lost out on time due to wrong question paper being handed to them. The government declared NEET UG results on June 4 instead of June 14, raising suspicion further.

Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court and in High Courts to nullify the examination owing to the paper leak and grace marks allotted to candidates. There are also allegations about discrepancies in exam results. However, the NTA and the Union government withdrew the grace marks and are set to conduct a fresh exams on June 23. Some of the petitions even called for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

“Considering the number of students who write the examination and the overall ramification of the examination, a multitude of petitions has been filed across the High Courts and the Supreme Court seeking stay on the counselling process and/or investigation into the paper leaking allegations,” said Ankur Mahindro, Managing Partner, Kred Jure

On the petitions pertaining to paper leak, the SC demanded answers from NTA. The SC said, “The sanctity of the exam has been affected, so we need answers.” Furthermore, the SC noted that there is no compromising on the sanctity of NEET UG as lakhs of students work hard to crack it. The NTA has been asked by the top court to take immediate action and remedy the existing situation.  The court however refused to stay the counselling as it would delay the admissions by months.

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan reiterated the government’s commitment to accountability and fairness. Pradhan emphasised that strict actions will be taken against any officials found guilty of malpractice.

NEET in brief:

Originally introduced in 2010, the NEET was implemented by the government in 2012. The examinations attracted opposition from states. States such as Tamil Nadu objected to NEET alleging that the examination was set for the CBSE syllabus, thereby putting students of the state board syllabus to disadvantage.

In 2013, the Supreme Court quashed NEET. The court had held that, “There can be no controversy that the standard of education all over the country is not the same. Each State has its own system and pattern of education, including the medium of instruction. It cannot also be disputed that children in the metropolitan areas enjoy greater privileges than their counterparts in most of the rural areas as far as education is concerned, and the decision of the Central Government to support a single entrance examination would perpetuate such divide in the name of giving credit to merit.”

However, in 2016, the Supreme Court decided to review its earlier verdict. The case went on till 2020, ultimately the apex court ruled in NEET’s favour. The court said “Education is not a commodity to be purchased by money power and deserving one as per merit cannot be deprived of the right to obtain it. The State cannot remain a mute spectator, and it must step in to prevent exploitation.”

The court thus concluded NEET was necessary to promote transparency in medical education and recognition of merit in the matter of admissions.