Six NEET-UG 2026 candidates have approached the Supreme Court alleging that the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets uploaded by the National Testing Agency (NTA) do not accurately reflect the answers they marked during the examination.
The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana on Tuesday, with the petitioners seeking an urgent hearing before the commencement of the NEET-UG counselling process.
According to the plea, the alleged discrepancies may have affected their scores, All India Ranks and chances of securing medical seats. Counsel for the candidates told the court that all six students had scored above 600 marks, with some crossing 650, and had unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the issue by emailing the NTA, submitting representations and visiting its office.
The Bench agreed to list the matter for hearing. As of Tuesday evening, the NTA had not issued any public response to the allegations. The case comes amid continuing scrutiny of NEET-UG 2026, which was re-conducted after the original examination was cancelled over an alleged paper leak. The Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims, and the allegations remain to be examined after the NTA files its response.
Candidates Seek Urgent Relief
The petitioners contend that the scanned OMR sheets released by the NTA do not match the responses they marked inside the examination hall, raising concerns that the alleged mismatch may have reduced their scores.
During the mentioning before the Supreme Court, counsel appearing for the students submitted that any delay in hearing the matter could cause irreversible prejudice because the centralised counselling process is expected to begin shortly.
Since medical admissions are determined by All India Rank, even a marginal difference in marks can significantly alter a candidate’s chances of obtaining a government medical college seat.
The petitioners further informed the court that they had first attempted to resolve the issue directly with the NTA by sending emails, filing representations and personally visiting the agency’s office, but claimed they received no response.
Taking note of the urgency, the Bench agreed to list the matter for hearing. At present, the Court has neither stayed the counselling process nor issued any findings regarding the allegations. No official statement has yet been released by the NTA responding specifically to the claims made by the six candidates.
Fresh Challenge In NEET-UG 2026
The latest plea adds to a series of legal challenges surrounding NEET-UG 2026, an examination cycle that has witnessed exceptional scrutiny. The original NEET-UG examination held on 3 May was cancelled following allegations of a paper leak, prompting nationwide investigations and a re-examination on 21 June.
Since then, several petitions have reached constitutional courts over issues ranging from disputed answer keys to evaluation-related concerns. Recently, another candidate approached the Delhi High Court alleging that the score displayed on the NTA portal changed multiple times after the declaration of results and questioning the accuracy of the uploaded OMR sheet.
The present petition similarly focuses on the integrity of the evaluation process rather than the examination itself. An OMR sheet is the primary record used to evaluate candidates’ responses, and any discrepancy between the answers marked by a student and the scanned copy uploaded by the examining authority could potentially affect the final score and ranking.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether the petitioners have established a prima facie case, whether independent verification of the disputed OMR records is required, and whether any interim relief is warranted before counselling progresses. Until the matter is heard and the NTA places its response before the Court, the allegations remain unverified.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Competitive examinations shape the futures of millions of young people, making transparency, accountability and timely grievance redressal essential to maintaining public trust. Whether the concerns raised by these six candidates are ultimately upheld or rejected by the Supreme Court, every aspirant deserves confidence that their performance has been evaluated accurately and fairly. Equally, examination authorities must have robust systems that allow candidates to raise genuine concerns and receive prompt, transparent responses before admission processes move forward.
Also read: No More Telegram on iPhones? Apple Briefly Removes It From the App Store in Several Countries
