Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain NEET Student's Plea Alleging Marks Mismatch After NTA Says Screenshot Of Website Is Forged

The Karnataka High Court on Monday [August 10] refused to entertain a NEET aspirant's plea who had alleged a "massive discrepancy" between her online marks and her official scorecard, after the National Testing Agency (NTA) contended that the document in question [screenshot allegedly taken from the website] was forged and did not originate from its website.

The Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerjee and T.P Vivekananda was hearing a plea filed an 18-year-old student from Vijayapura, who claimed that while a screenshot she possessed showed her securing 454 marks, her official scorecard reflected only 191 marks.

During the proceedings, the NTA, represented by Senior CGC Vinay Venugopal refuted the petitioner's claims. The testing agency submitted that the screenshot relied upon by the student was never generated from its official portal and amounted to a fabricated document.

Hearing this, the court orally expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the petition was pursued. The bench cautioned the parents of the petitioner for exploiting the court's leniency towards minors.

“…Just because this court is concerned about the welfare of children, it doesn't mean that you[parents] can utilise the control and influence you have over her. Can you put a gun on the shoulder of a child to fire it? You can't play with the life of a child…”, the Court orally remarked.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court observed that the matter prima facie constituted perjury. The bench noted that it was well within its power to take cognizance of the affidavit filed in the matter and even order a magisterial inquiry into the forgery. However, the court refrained from doing so, considering the future of the child involved.

In light of the serious allegations of forgery and the NTA's categorical denial, the Court directed the petitioner's counsel to file a memo to withdraw the writ petition, which the counsel for the petitioner accepted.

Previously, the court had directed the presence of the petitioner for today's hearing along with the device from which the alleged screenshot was downloaded.

For context, under the NEET bulletin and the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024, forging documents or tampering with records like OMR sheets attracts severe penalties, including a 3-year debarment from the exam, cancellation of results, and criminal prosecution.

Case Title: Srushti v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: WP 23373/2026

Petitioner's Advocate: Adv. Kamaddolli Manjuladevi Ramappa

Respondent's Advocate: Central Government Senior Standing Counsel Vinay Venugopal