Court says it will not refer disputed questions to experts on the objection of a single candidate, especially after NTA had already examined and rejected the grievance
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the answer keys of two questions in NEET-UG 2026, holding that courts should not interfere with examination answer keys unless a clear and material error is shown. The court reiterated that academic matters are best left to experts and that in case of doubt, the benefit must go to the examination authority rather than the candidate.
A Division Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh was hearing the petition filed by Nitin Mishra, who had objected to answer keys for questions numbered 60 and 70 in the NEET-UG 2026 examination. The petitioner argued that similar questions had appeared in earlier JEE Main examinations in 2019 and 2022, but with different answer keys, and therefore sought reference of the disputed questions to an expert committee.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, contending that the court could seek expert opinion on disputed examination questions. He also submitted that neither the petitioner, his counsel, nor the court were experts in chemistry, and therefore expert adjudication was necessary.
However, the NTA, represented before the court, stated that the petitioner had already raised objections to the answer keys and that those objections were examined and rejected. The respondents also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in UPPSC v. Rahul Singh, which lays down that courts should presume the correctness of answer keys and interfere only in rare and exceptional cases where a material error is clearly demonstrated.
The High Court noted that the petitioner appeared to be the only candidate who had challenged the correctness of the two questions, despite the fact that a large number of candidates had appeared in the examination. The court distinguished Vanshika Yadav, observing that in that case the NTA itself had accepted representations and treated more than one option as correct, whereas in the present case there was no such factual basis and the objection had already been rejected by the NTA.
The Bench held that there must be concrete facts before the court to justify reference to an expert. Mere assertion that the court or counsel are not experts was not enough. Since no clear material error was shown and no wider challenge from other candidates existed, the court refused to interfere.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Bottom Line:
Examination matters - Challenge to NEET-UG answer keys - Court will not refer disputed questions to experts or interfere with answer keys merely on objection of a single candidate, especially when objection was considered and rejected by NTA and no clear material error is demonstrated - In case of doubt, benefit goes to examination authority.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950
Nitin Mishra v. Union of India, (All)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982696
