Allegations On Tampering Of NEET OMR Sheet 'Serious', Cannot Be Accepted Merely On Candidate's Suspicion: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that allegations of tampering with a NEET candidate's OMR sheet are serious and cannot be accepted merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture or subjective belief in the absence of substantive evidence. The Court further observed that a candidate cannot bypass the examining authority's grievance redressal mechanism and directly invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where no material is placed to show that the prescribed remedy was unavailable or ineffective.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a writ petition filed by a NEET (UG)-2026 aspirant seeking production of his original OMR sheet and re-evaluation of his answer sheet.

The petitioner contended that although the roll number, booklet number and signatures on the scanned OMR sheet belonged to him, the answers reflected therein were materially different from those actually marked by him during the examination. He alleged that his original OMR sheet had been tampered with, resulting in his being awarded only 200 marks instead of the 600-plus marks he expected on the basis of the answers attempted by him. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that having failed to follow the prescribed procedure and having bypassed the grievance redressal mechanism, the petitioner cannot seek indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court held that the petitioner's allegation of manipulation rested solely upon his own comparison of the question booklet with the scanned OMR sheet and a self-prepared comparison chart. It observed that apart from such assertions and apprehensions, no independent, credible or cogent material had been produced to establish that the scanned OMR sheet differed from the original OMR sheet submitted during the examination or that any manipulation had been committed by the respondent authorities.

“Serious allegations involving tampering of official examination records cannot be accepted merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture or subjective belief, particularly when no substantive evidence has been placed before the Court,” the Court remarked.

The Court further noted that the petitioner has not availed the grievance redressal mechanism specifically provided by the respondent authorities for examination-related disputes before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

"... the NEET (UG) Examination is conducted on a national scale through a standardized and transparent process. Judicial interference with the evaluation process, based solely on an individual's apprehension unsupported by convincing evidence, would adversely affect the certainty, sanctity and finality of the examination system," the Court observed. 

The Bench further held that the interim order of the Bombay High Court relied upon by the petitioner did not advance his case, as it merely directed production of the answer sheet and did not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties or lay down any binding principle of law. The Court also relied upon its earlier decision in Ku. Amisha Gupta v. Union of India, observing that a mere allegation of discrepancy in an OMR sheet, unsupported by cogent evidence, does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides or procedural irregularity on the part of the respondent authorities in the evaluation of his NEET (UG)-2026 examination, the Court declined to direct production of the original OMR sheet or re-evaluation of the answer sheet and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Aryan Agrawal v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. [WPC No. 3949 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order