Court upholds National Testing Agency's official records citing lack of concrete evidence, directs petitioners to approach Civil Court for disputed factual matters
In a significant judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the Patna High Court, presided over by Mr. Harish Kumar, J., dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by three NEET-UG 2026 candidates-Pawani Prabha, Priya Kumari, and Nisha Kumari-who alleged tampering, swapping, and manipulation of their OMR answer sheets and scorecards by the National Testing Agency (NTA).
The petitioners contended that their initially declared marks, which were substantially higher, were unjustly reduced, adversely impacting their category ranks and chances of admission to medical colleges. They challenged the authenticity of the original OMR sheets produced by the NTA, alleging discrepancies in answers marked, missing signatures, and mismatches in their signatures compared to other documents. The petitioners also claimed that the QR codes on their downloaded scorecards were non-functional and that the screenshots of earlier scorecards they had retained were proof of manipulation.
The Court undertook a meticulous examination of the original OMR sheets produced in sealed covers by the NTA. These OMR sheets contained comprehensive candidate details including roll numbers, test booklet numbers, answer sheet numbers, candidate signatures, thumb impressions, parents' names, and invigilator signatures. Notably, two of the petitioners had not even challenged their OMR sheets within the stipulated window provided by the NTA, while the third challenged only one question.
Relying on the presumption of correctness under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court emphasized that official records maintained by the NTA must be presumed authentic unless rebutted by concrete material or evidence. The Court also pointed out that the scorecards relied upon by the petitioners did not correspond with the official NTA records and that the QR codes on those scorecards failed to link to the original data, unlike the authentic scorecards.
Addressing the discrepancies in signatures, the Court observed that variations in signatures across different documents executed at different times are natural due to physical, emotional, and situational factors and do not, by themselves, prove tampering or forgery.
Significantly, the Court noted the absence of any mala fide intent or arbitrariness on the part of the examination authorities. It underscored the necessity of judicial restraint in academic matters, highlighting the potential adverse impact of interfering with examination results on the uniformity, sanctity, and finality of national competitive exams.
The Court further held that since the petitioners continued to dispute the genuineness of OMR sheets even after their production before the Court, the contested factual issues requiring detailed evidence and witness examination were unsuitable for determination under writ jurisdiction. The petitioners were, therefore, relegated to seek remedy before a competent Civil Court.
In conclusion, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the correctness of the NTA's evaluation process and records, while extending best wishes to the petitioners for their future endeavors.
This judgment aligns with precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court emphasizing judicial restraint in academic disputes and the presumption of correctness of official examination records.
Bottom Line:
NEET-UG 2026 - Candidates alleging alteration of scorecards and swapping/tampering of OMR sheets - Original OMR sheets produced by NTA contained candidate particulars, signatures, thumb impressions, parents' names and invigilator signatures - Mere mismatch in expected marks, screenshots of alleged earlier scorecards, non-functional QR code and variation in signatures not sufficient to dislodge presumption attached to official records - In absence of proof of arbitrariness, mala fides or procedural illegality, writ jurisdiction not to be exercised in disputed factual matters - Candidates relegated to competent Civil Court.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Pawani Prabha v. Union of India, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992120
