The counselling, which was scheduled to commence on July 6, has been deferred.
Notably, through its order, the Court sought disclosure from the Union government and NTA on various aspects.
One of these was what modalities should be followed during the period between the exam date (May 5) and the actual commencement of the counselling process.
Accordingly, the CJI modified the order to read, "a considered decision at the policy level would have to be taken by the government on the status of the counselling ".
If a committee has already been setup by the government for deducing the steps to be taken for future, full details shall be made available to the Court.
Upon hearing a batch of petitions challenging the NEET-UG exam conducted by the National Testing Agency on May 5 this year, the Supreme Court today observed that the Union Government and the NTA have to take a policy decision on the status of counselling while the exercise of identifying the beneficiaries of the paper leak is pending.The counselling, which was scheduled to commence on July 6,...
Upon hearing a batch of petitions challenging the NEET-UG exam conducted by the National Testing Agency on May 5 this year, the Supreme Court today observed that the Union Government and the NTA have to take a policy decision on the status of counselling while the exercise of identifying the beneficiaries of the paper leak is pending.
The counselling, which was scheduled to commence on July 6, has been deferred.
A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra passed the order, after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for Union government) and Advocate Naresh Kaushik (for NTA) on the question whether all student-beneficiaries of the question paper leakage have already been identified. It emphasized on the need to segregate tainted students from the untainted, saying that otherwise, re-test would have to be ordered, if the paper leakage was widespread affecting the sanctity of the entire exam.
For a detailed report on the proceedings and case background, click here.
Notably, through its order, the Court sought disclosure from the Union government and NTA on various aspects. One of these was what modalities should be followed during the period between the exam date (May 5) and the actual commencement of the counselling process.
"The third aspect on which we require a disclosure is in regard to the modalities to be followed between the conclusion of the examination including the re-test which was held for 1563 students and the actual commencement of the counselling process. If an exercise is to be conducted by the NTA and the Union government so as to deduce any further beneficiaries of the question paper leakage, a considered decision at the policy level would have to be taken by the government on whether counselling should be allowed to proceed in the meantime or otherwise ...", CJI dictated.
Hearing the same, SG Tushar Mehta prayed that the order may not record so. Accordingly, the CJI modified the order to read, "a considered decision at the policy level would have to be taken by the government on the status of the counselling ".
Before parting, the Court also expressed concerns about the steps which should be taken in future to ensure sanctity of the NEET exam and to prevent repetition of events which transpired this year. To quote the CJI,
"It would be necessary for the government to consider setting up a multi-disciplinary team consisting of renowned experts who command wider confidence of the community to ensure that due measures are being taken to obviate any further breaches in the NEET in the future. If a committee has already been setup by the government for deducing the steps to be taken for future, full details shall be made available to the Court. The Court may then consider whether the committee which has been constituted by the government should be allowed to proceed as it is or whether constitution of the committee should be modified, so as to bring together a pool of talent from diverse fields bearing not only on administration but also on domain expertise and data analytics."
The matter is next listed for consideration on July 11.
Case Details : Vanshika Yadav v. UOI, W.P.(C) No. 335/2024 (and connected matters)
