'Signature Variations Alone Cannot Establish OMR Tampering': Patna High Court Dismisses NEET Aspirants' Pleas

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar was hearing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by NEET-UG 2026 aspirants challenging the marks and OMR answer sheets maintained by the National Testing Agency (NTA).

In one petition, the candidate claimed that she had secured 622 marks out of 720 and a rank of 2500 under GEN-EWS, but her marks were subsequently reduced to 81, resulting in her category rank being downgraded to 143568. She sought recalculation/reverification of her percentile marks and production of her original OMR and answer sheet.

In another connected matter, the petitioner claimed that her OMR sheet had been changed during evaluation. She stated that she had attempted 169 of 180 questions and expected around 560 marks, but after the OMR was uploaded on the NTA website, she found that marks had allegedly been awarded for only 33 questions.

The petitioners alleged that their scorecards initially reflected substantially higher marks which were subsequently reduced. They also raised doubts regarding the genuineness of the OMR sheets and alleged the possibility of their replacement or alteration.

Considering that the petitioners were young NEET aspirants whose academic careers were at stake, the Court directed the NTA on 17.08.2026 to produce their original OMR sheets. The NTA subsequently produced the original OMR sheets in sealed envelopes on 27.08.2026. When the sealed envelopes were opened in Court, the petitioners disputed the genuineness of the OMR sheets and stated that the sheets produced did not belong to them. They also disputed the signatures appearing on the OMR sheets.

The Court, however, examined the original OMR sheets and noted that they contained the candidates' roll numbers, test booklet numbers, answer sheet numbers, OMR codes, names, signatures, thumb impressions, parents' names, invigilator signatures and the answers attempted by the candidates.

The Court observed that a national entrance examination is a “trust-based administrative exercise” and that examination authorities must maintain robust systems for preservation of physical and electronic records, OMR custody, scanning, database controls and auditability. At the same time, the Court held that judicial interference cannot be based merely on apprehension, particularly when the original examination records have been produced and there is no convincing evidence of manipulation.

On the candidates' reliance on differences between their signatures on admit cards and OMR sheets, the Court observed:

“It is well founded and relevant to note that the handwriting and signatures of a person are subject to inherent variations. The physical and emotional state of a person at the time of subscribing a signature may also contribute to such variations.”

The Court further held:

“Therefore, such variations in signatures, by themselves, cannot constitute a ground to contend that the OMR answer sheets had been tampered with or swapped.”

The Court also noted that two of the three petitioners had not challenged the OMR answer sheets within the stipulated period provided by the NTA, and that none of the petitioners had downloaded an OMR sheet which they could contemporaneously demonstrate to be correct.

The Court emphasised the need for judicial restraint in matters concerning a national competitive examination, observing that interference based solely on individual apprehension could affect the certainty, sanctity and finality of the examination process. It noted:

“Judicial interference with the evaluation process based solely upon an individual's apprehension, unsupported by convincing evidence, would adversely affect the certainty, sanctity and finality of the examination system.”

Finding no sufficient basis to doubt the records maintained by the NTA or establish arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides or procedural irregularity, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.

The Court clarified that if the petitioners continued to dispute the genuineness of the OMR sheets, such disputed questions of fact would require adjudication by a competent Civil Court involving examination of witnesses and documentary evidence.

Before parting, the Court extended its best wishes to the petitioners and observed:

“Before parting with these cases, this Court, however, extends the best wishes for the petitioners and hopes that they come out with flying colours in next examination; and/or something more better is awaiting in their life what is already destined for them.”

Appearance:

In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12297 of 2026

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. CGC; Mr. Lokesh, Advocate

For the N.M.C: Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate (Sr. SC)

For the NTA: Ms. Chhaya Kirti, Advocate

In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11735 of 2026

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Rahul Deo Varman, CGC

In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12371 of 2026

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Pramod Kr. Yadav, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Additional Solicitor General

For the NTA: Ms. Chhaya Kirti, Advocate

For the N.M.C: Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, SC; Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Advocate