Patna HC dismisses NEET score-change pleas, finds no proof of NTA tampering; candidates may pursue civil remedy

Three NEET-UG 2026 candidates challenged their results and the genuineness of the OMR sheets produced by the National Testing Agency (NTA).

Two petitioners alleged that scorecards initially showing substantially higher marks had later been replaced by scorecards reflecting much lower marks; the third claimed that her OMR sheet did not reflect the answers she had attempted.

The Court directed the NTA to produce the original OMR sheets. When shown the sheets, the petitioners denied that they were theirs and disputed the signatures and answers recorded on them.

The NTA maintained that the scorecards relied on by the petitioners were not genuine, that the results and OMR records had not been changed, and that the marks followed from the recorded answers and final answer key. It also relied on NIC certificates stating that only one OMR sheet and one set of result data had been uploaded for each petitioner.

Whether the petitioners established a sufficient basis under Article 226 to challenge the NTA’s OMR sheets, evaluation, or published results as altered, manipulated, or otherwise unreliable.

Whether the disputes over the identity and genuineness of the OMR sheets could be resolved in writ proceedings or required adjudication through a civil remedy involving evidence.

Article 226 permits judicial review of examination decisions where the process is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, mala fide, or contrary to prescribed procedure, but courts exercise restraint in academic and competitive-examination matters and do not substitute their assessment for that of the examining body without a demonstrated defect.

The Court relied on Prabhnoor Singh v. National Testing Agency, where the Supreme Court declined to entertain allegations of OMR tampering in the absence of material indicating manipulation.

It also considered the principle, stated in Selishia Mohandas v. Union of India, that official examination records carry a presumption of correctness under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless rebutted by concrete material.

Where a claim turns on disputed facts requiring detailed examination of witnesses and documents, the writ court may leave the claimant to pursue an appropriate civil remedy.

The Court examined the original OMR sheets and noted that they contained the candidates’ identifying particulars, signatures, thumb impressions, invigilator signatures, and recorded answers.

It also considered that two petitioners had not challenged their OMR sheets within the notified objection period, while the third had challenged only one question; the NTA’s records and NIC certificates did not support the alleged alteration of results or OMR sheets.

Differences between signatures on the OMR sheets and other documents were not, by themselves, sufficient to establish tampering. The Court concluded that the petitioners had not produced convincing material demonstrating arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural irregularity.

To the extent they continued to dispute the identity or genuineness of the sheets, those contested factual questions required a fuller evidentiary inquiry than was appropriate in the writ proceedings.

It left the petitioners at liberty to pursue any appropriate remedy before a competent court or authority.

The original OMR sheets were returned to the NTA through its counsel.