The Supreme Court on Monday sought status reports from the Centre, CBI and the National Testing Agency on the alleged paper leak and other malpractices related to the NEET undergraduate examination.

The court indicated it may order a retest only if the irregularities were found to be “widespread”, affecting a vast section of students.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud prima facie took the view that the integrity of the exam process had been compromised. It asked the authorities to be “ruthless” in dealing with the issue and posted the next hearing to Thursday.

The bench, which included Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, orally observed: “It is an admitted fact that there is a leak and the nature of the leak is something that we are determining. If it is not extensive then there is no cancellation. But before we order a retest, we must be conscious of the extent of the leak as we are dealing with 23 lakh students.

“This concerns cost to be incurred, travelling, dislodging of academic schedule and other facts. We have to determine what is the nature of the leak. How was the leak?... The time... How was the leak disseminated? What are
the actions which the Centre and the NTA have taken to identify the beneficiary
students of the wrongdoing?” the bench observed.

The bench added: “We have to be ruthless to identify the beneficiaries of the leak…”

Justice Chandrachud said a decision on whether a retest should be held would be based on settled parameters and the court would have to examine the following issues:

• Whether the alleged breach took place at the systemic level.

• Whether the breach was of a nature that affected the integrity of the entire exam process.

• Whether it is possible to segregate the beneficiaries of the alleged fraud from the untainted students. In a situation where the breach of sanctity has affected the entirety of the exam and segregation is not possible, a retest is necessary. But if the beneficiaries can be identified, a retest, which would involve students on such a large scale, won’t be needed.

The bench recorded the statement of solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre. He said the main FIR relating to the alleged paper leak was registered in Patna while the FIRs relating to the various other alleged malpractices had been registered in Delhi, Gujarat, Jharkhand and Rajasthan.

The bench said in a written order: “Whether the FIRs concerning paper leak are only confined to Patna or otherwise need to await a detailed consideration. The above narration indicates that the exam was conducted over a wide spectrum comprising nearly 23 lakh students.

“We are of the view that an order on merits would have to be deferred. The NTA is directed to make a full disclosure before the court. It is in three areas: first is the nature of the leak, places where the leak took place and the lag of time between the leak and the conduct of the exam. The NTA is directed to clarify based on material in its possession on following issues: When did the leak first take place? How the question papers leaked were disseminated? The time duration between the leak and the exam on May 5.”

The court added: “We are also of the view that the CBI shall file a status report before this court on the status of the investigation as of today and material which has come to light till today.”