Supreme Court Upholds NEET-UG Re-Exam Results
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition lodged by a student contesting the accuracy of official answers for six questions in the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination. The re-exam, conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on June 21 following allegations of a paper leak in the original May 3 exam, was brought into question by Gayatri Arun, a candidate from Kerala.
The Bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, found no merit in the plea and decided against revisiting the results. The petition sought to amend the merit list based on alleged discrepancies between the official answers and the NCERT textbooks for subjects including Chemistry, Botany, and Zoology. The petitioner argued that inaccuracies in even a single question could significantly impact a candidate’s All India Rank.
The student’s legal representation argued for the annulment of marks awarded for the disputed questions, urging the Court to mandate a revised merit list before the commencement of the counseling process. Additionally, they requested the appointment of independent subject experts to review the contested answers and sought assurance for her seat in the ongoing admission cycle.
On reviewing the materials and hearing the counsel’s arguments, the Supreme Court expressed its disinclination to intervene under Article 32 of the Constitution, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court’s decision leaves the NTA’s declared results and merit list unchanged.
Previous Legal Proceedings in Kerala
Prior to approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioner had filed a similar plea with the Kerala High Court. There, she highlighted technical difficulties faced while submitting objections to the NEET questions and suggested a procedural change—a three-day interval between the release of the final answer key and the result announcement. However, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed her plea on July 7, emphasizing that courts are not equipped to assess examination answer keys and that any delay could adversely affect other candidates.
More Read
The High Court’s single-judge decision was later upheld by a Division Bench, including Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S, reinforcing the view that the NTA’s rapid publication of results post-final key release left candidates no opportunity to contest the final key.
In her appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the challenge to the factual accuracy of the answer key represented a new cause of action, distinct from her earlier procedural objections. Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court maintained its stance not to intervene, effectively endorsing the NTA’s results and merit list. Advocate Sachin Patil represented the petitioner in this matter.
