Re-NEET Row: Bombay High Court Finds No Discrepancy in Answer Sheets, Dismisses Four Petitions; Imposes ₹5,000 Costs
In a significant ruling that reinforces the integrity of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination evaluation process, the Bombay High Court’s Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Bench dismissed four petitions filed by candidates alleging discrepancies between their OMR answer sheets and the marks awarded by the National Testing Agency (NTA). After personally examining the original answer sheets produced before the Court, the Bench concluded that no evaluation errors or discrepancies had occurred and imposed costs of ₹5,000 on each petitioner for pursuing unsubstantiated claims.
The petitions were filed by NEET aspirants who claimed that the marks reflected in their scorecards were significantly lower than the scores they had calculated using their OMR responses and the official answer key. The candidates alleged that there had either been an error in evaluation or a mismatch between their actual answer sheets and the records maintained by the NTA. Taking the allegations seriously, the High Court had earlier directed the NTA to produce the original OMR answer sheets and related records for judicial scrutiny before deciding the matter.
During the hearing, the National Testing Agency produced the original answer sheets before the Bench. The Court carefully compared the original OMR records with the marks awarded and found that the evaluation had been carried out correctly in accordance with the official answer key. The judges observed that there was no material discrepancy between the candidates’ original responses and the results declared by the NTA, thereby rejecting the central allegation made in the petitions.
The High Court also took note of the NTA’s consistent stand that several allegations circulating on social media regarding OMR mismatches were based on manipulated, digitally altered, or fabricated answer sheet images. The examination authority had previously clarified that its official records matched the declared scores and warned that circulation of forged examination documents could invite legal consequences under applicable laws. The Court’s examination of the original records effectively supported the agency’s position in the cases before it.
While dismissing the petitions, the Bench imposed ₹5,000 as costs on each petitioner, indicating that the claims lacked merit after judicial verification of the original records. The imposition of costs reflects the Court’s view that judicial time should not be unnecessarily consumed by allegations that are ultimately found to be unsupported by evidence, particularly after official records conclusively establish the correctness of the evaluation process.
The judgment is significant because it demonstrates the Court’s willingness to independently verify examination records rather than relying solely on the submissions of either the candidates or the examination authority. By directing production of the original OMR sheets before reaching its conclusion, the High Court ensured transparency in the adjudicatory process while safeguarding the credibility of one of India’s largest competitive examinations.
The ruling is also expected to have broader implications for future litigation involving examination results. Courts have consistently recognised that while candidates are entitled to challenge evaluation errors where credible evidence exists, allegations must be substantiated through authentic records rather than assumptions or digitally altered documents. The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial intervention in examination matters is warranted only where genuine irregularities are established through reliable evidence.
For the National Testing Agency, the decision represents judicial affirmation of the evaluation process adopted for the re-NEET examination. At a time when the examination has been the subject of intense public scrutiny and multiple legal challenges, the High Court’s findings strengthen confidence in the integrity of the declared results. The dismissal of the petitions after examination of the original answer sheets is likely to discourage frivolous challenges while preserving the right of candidates to approach courts in cases supported by genuine evidence of irregularity.
