Introduction
The integrity of India’s most prestigious medical entrance exam, NEET-UG 2024, is now under judicial scrutiny. In an unexpected move, the National Testing Agency (NTA) allegedly awarded “arbitrary grace marks” to certain candidates, resulting in significant discrepancies in merit rankings. In response, aggrieved students and parents have approached the Supreme Court of India, demanding the cancellation of results and a court-monitored re-examination.
This article dissects the issue legally — underlining constitutional rights, past precedents, and the judiciary’s responsibility in ensuring fair evaluation in national-level competitive exams.
What Triggered the Petition?
On May 13, 2025, a group of students and parents filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, alleging:
- Opaque marking methodology: Over 1,500 students allegedly received 60–70 additional marks without explanation.
- Distortion of All India Rankings: Candidates who had originally scored between 500–600 marks were pushed out of the merit list by lower-performing candidates who received inflated marks.
- Violation of Equality and Transparency: Grace marks were allegedly awarded in an inconsistent and discriminatory manner.
Legal Issues Raised
1. Violation of Article 14 (Equality Before Law)
Petitioners claim that awarding grace marks to only a select group, without rational classification or disclosure, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Education & Fair Procedure)
Unexplained grace marks affect the right to fair and merit-based education, which is part of the broader interpretation of Article 21. The arbitrariness also violates procedural due process.
3. Need for Judicial Oversight on National Exams
Petitioners argue that a court-monitored committee is necessary to restore trust in the NEET process, echoing similar demands in previous judicial interventions on national examinations.
Relevant Case Laws and Precedents
🔹 Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)
Held that education is a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment is often cited to assert non-arbitrary access to education.
🔹 TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)
Recognized the autonomy of education bodies, but also emphasized regulation for fairness.
🔹 CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)
Established the right of students to access evaluation transparency — including answer sheets, thereby promoting accountability.
🔹 Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K (2019)
Court set aside results where marks were granted irrationally and affected fair selection.
NTA’s Preliminary Defense
Although no formal affidavit has yet been filed, sources indicate that the NTA may argue:
- Grace marks were added due to “incorrect or ambiguous” questions.
- The process followed the exam policy framework, although not fully publicized.
- A complete re-exam would be “logistically unfeasible” for 24 lakh+ candidates.
Petitioners’ Prayer Before the Court
The petitioners are demanding:
- Stay on the current results;
- Full disclosure of grace mark policy and beneficiaries;
- Constitution of an expert committee, preferably with retired judges;
- Fresh examination, if systemic discrepancies are found.
Why This Case Matters
- Precedent-setting: Will decide if opaque evaluation systems can be constitutionally challenged.
- Affects lakhs of aspirants: Potentially changes the career trajectory of over 24 lakh students.
- Tests accountability of autonomous education bodies like the NTA.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing on the NEET 2024 grace marks case is not just about marks — it’s a litmus test for the credibility of public examinations in India. The verdict will have long-term implications for how educational merit is determined, contested, and protected under law.
References
- Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858
- CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497
- Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, (2019) 11 SCC 282
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 21