Student’s suspicion alone can’t prove NEET OMR tampering: Chhattisgarh High Court

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed the plea.

Allegations of OMR tampering

The petitioner had appeared in the NEET (UG)- 2026 exam. He claimed that after downloading the scanned OMR sheet uploaded by the National Testing Agency (NTA), he found that while the booklet number, roll number and signatures matched his own, several answers reflected on the scanned sheet were materially different from those he had actually marked during the examination.

He alleged that the discrepancies indicated that his original OMR sheet had been altered, resulting in his score being reduced to 200 marks instead of the over 600 marks he claimed he expected.

It was argued that the scanned OMR sheet supplied by the authorities contains ink marks extending beyond the OMR circles, which was completely inconsistent with the manner in which the petitioner ordinarily fills answer sheets. It was further argued that immediately after noticing the aforesaid discrepancies, the petitioner submitted e-mail representations before the respondent authorities requesting them to provide the original OMR sheet for verification and examination of the alleged discrepancies. However, despite such requests, the original OMR sheet had not been supplied.

Opposing the plea, the respondent authorities including NTA argued that the petitioner had failed to avail the alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the mechanism prescribed by the authorities. It was further stated that the examination process is conducted under a well-defined procedure and a specific mechanism has been provided for redressal of grievances relating to the question paper, answer key, OMR sheet and evaluation process.

It argued that having bypassed the grievance redressal mechanism, the petitioner cannot seek indulgence of the court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court observed that the petitioner’s allegations rested solely upon his own comparison of the question booklet with the scanned OMR sheet and a self prepared comparison chart. “Apart from such assertions and apprehensions, no independent, credible or cogent material has been produced to establish that the scanned OMR sheet differs from the original OMR sheet submitted during the examination or that any manipulation has been committed by the respondent authorities,” the court said.

The court further noted that the petitioner had not availed the grievance redressal mechanism specifically provided by the authorities for examination-related disputes before approaching the court. “In the absence of any material demonstrating that such remedy was either unavailable or inefficacious, the petitioner cannot bypass the prescribed mechanism and seek adjudication of disputed questions of fact directly under Article 226 of the Constitution,” it said.

The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides or procedural irregularity by the authorities in the evaluation of his NEET (UG)-2026 examination. Therefore, it refused to allow the plea and dismissed the petition.