Delhi High Court Upholds NEET-UG 2026 Answer Key for “Homo Sapiens” Question, Rejects Challenge Over Omission of “Modern”

The Appellant appeared in the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) on 21 June 2026.

Question No. 143 in Biology asked candidates to assess two statements: Statement I asserted that modern Homo sapiens arose in Australia and moved across continents, while Statement II stated that Homo sapiens arose around 75,000 and 10,000 years ago.

The provisional answer key treated Option 1—Statement I incorrect but Statement II correct—as the correct answer, whereas the Appellant had selected Option 3, treating both statements as incorrect.

The Appellant challenged the provisional answer key, contending that the prescribed Class XII NCERT Biology textbook supported only Option 3 because it referred to the emergence of “modern Homo sapiens” during the relevant period.

The NTA retained Option 1 in the final answer key after placing objections before a panel of subject experts, and the Appellant’s result was declared at 569 out of 720 marks.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Appellant’s writ petition, holding that the Court ought not to sit in judgment over the opinion of subject experts.

The present intra-court appeal challenged that decision.

Whether the omission of the word “modern” from Statement II of Question No. 143 rendered the statement objectively incorrect under the prescribed NCERT textbook, making Option 3 the correct answer instead of Option 1?

Whether the Court could interfere with the final answer key where the objection had been considered by subject experts, but the NTA had not disclosed the specific expert reasoning or report addressing the Appellant’s objection?

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in declining judicial review of the final answer key on the ground that the alleged error was not manifest or palpable?

The Court applied the settled principle governing judicial review of examination answer keys that courts must exercise restraint and defer to the opinion of subject experts.

Under Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, as followed in Om Prakash Verma v. National Testing Agency, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 115, and Kushagra Mittal Minor & Anr. v. National Testing Agency & Ors., 2026:DHC:6822-DB, interference is justified only where the answer key is shown to be manifestly, patently, or palpably erroneous, without requiring an inferential process or a choice between competing academic views.

The burden lies on the candidate to establish such glaring error; unless that burden is discharged, any doubt must operate in favour of the examination authority and its expert determination.

The Court also considered the principle that prior examination by experts does not create an absolute bar to judicial scrutiny, but found that the present case did not disclose a manifest error warranting intervention.

The Court held that the Appellant’s challenge depended on reading the NCERT textbook as drawing a legally decisive distinction between “Homo sapiens” and “modern Homo sapiens”.

However, the textbook did not expressly categorise the two expressions separately or establish that the period stated in Statement II applied exclusively to “modern Homo sapiens”.

Consequently, treating the omission of “modern” as fatal to Statement II would require an inferential interpretation of the textbook rather than demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Appellant’s selection of Option 3 reflected her understanding of the terminology but did not establish that the expert-approved Option 1 was patently wrong.

The Court further held that the NTA’s failure to disclose the detailed basis for rejecting the specific objection did not relieve the Appellant of her burden to independently prove a manifest error.

The record showed that the objection had been placed before the committee of subject experts and that the final key was prepared after consideration of the objections.

Since resolving the dispute would require choosing between competing interpretations rather than correcting an obvious error, judicial interference was unwarranted.

It held that the Appellant had failed to establish any manifest or palpable error in treating Option 1 as the correct answer to Question No. 143, and that the presumption of correctness attaching to the final answer key and the subject experts’ opinion remained unrebutted.

Finding no infirmity in the learned Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

The pending applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.