Courts must presume examination answer keys correct absent clear, exceptional proof of material error.

The petitioner appeared in the NEET-UG 2026 examination and challenged the answer keys to Questions 60 and 70.

He contended that Question 60 had previously appeared in JEE Main 2019 and Question 70 in JEE Main 2022, but that the answers adopted in those examinations differed from the NEET-UG 2026 answer keys.

The petitioner had raised objections before the National Testing Agency (NTA), which examined and rejected them, maintaining the correctness of the disputed answer keys.

The petitioner sought reference of the questions and answer options to an expert committee, relying on Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India , 2024 (9) SCC 743.

The Court noted that, despite the large number of candidates who had appeared in the examination, the petitioner appeared to be the only candidate challenging these questions.

Whether the Court should refer the disputed NEET-UG 2026 questions and answer keys to an expert committee for determination of their correctness?

Whether the petitioner had established a rare or exceptional case of material error warranting judicial interference with the NTA’s answer keys?

The Court applied the principles stated in UPPSC v. Rahul Singh , 2018 (7) SCC 254, namely that re-evaluation or scrutiny of examination answers may be permitted only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly, without inferential reasoning or rationalisation; courts should not ordinarily re-evaluate answer sheets because they lack academic expertise; the correctness of the official answer key should be presumed; and, in case of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than the candidate.

The Court also considered Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India , 2024 (9) SCC 743, where expert examination was sought after representations had led the NTA to accept more than one answer and award marks accordingly.

The Court interpreted Vanshika Yadav as requiring factual circumstances sufficient to justify an expert reference, rather than treating such reference as automatic.

The petitioner relied principally on the fact that similar questions had appeared in earlier JEE Main examinations with different answer keys. However, the Court found that this circumstance, standing alone, did not demonstrate a clear and material error in the NEET-UG answer keys.

Unlike Vanshika Yadav , there had been no broader controversy, no indication that multiple answers were objectively correct, and no decision by the NTA to amend the answer key or award marks to candidates.

The NTA had considered the petitioner’s objections and reaffirmed the answer keys.

Applying the presumption in favour of the examination authority and the principle that courts should not enter into academic evaluation absent a clear exceptional error, the Court held that the facts did not warrant an expert reference.

It held that the petitioner had not established a rare or exceptional case of demonstrable material error in the disputed answer keys, and that the circumstances did not justify referral to an expert committee.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.