Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses NEET 2026 OMR Tampering Plea; Petitioner's Own Comparison Chart Not Cogent Evidence

A Division Bench dismissed a writ petition alleging OMR sheet manipulation in NEET UG 2026, holding that mere self-prepared comparison charts cannot establish tampering of official examination records.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed a writ petition filed by Aryan Agrawal, a 17-year-old NEET UG 2026 aspirant from Bhilai, District Durg, who alleged that his OMR sheet had been tampered with, causing him to be awarded only 200 marks against an expected tally of more than 600. A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, with Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held on 30 July 2026 that serious allegations of manipulation of official examination records cannot rest solely on a candidate's own comparison of his question booklet with the scanned OMR sheet. The bench also found that the petitioner had bypassed the grievance redressal mechanism prescribed by the respondent authorities before approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Aryan Agrawal, represented through his father and legal guardian Kishore Agrawal, applied to appear in the NEET UG 2026 Examination after an earlier scheduled examination was cancelled on account of an alleged paper leak. He sat for the rescheduled examination on 21 June 2026 at Government V.Y.T. Post Graduate Autonomous College, G.E. Road, Near Raipur Naka, District Durg, bearing Roll No. 1701105387. He was allotted Test Booklet Code-70, a 32-page booklet bearing SUSHRUT No. 265041739.

After the respondent authorities published the final answer key and uploaded scanned OMR sheets, the petitioner downloaded his scanned copy and compared it against the answers he had recorded in his question booklet. He found what he described as glaring discrepancies. For Question No. 1, he claimed to have marked Option (4) — the correct answer per the final key — but the scanned OMR reflected Option (1). For Question No. 2, he said he had marked Option (2), the correct answer, while the scanned copy showed Option (4). For Question No. 3, he asserted he had marked Option (4) but the scanned sheet showed Option (2). He contended such discrepancies ran through several answers across the sheet.

The petitioner further argued that the ink impressions on the scanned OMR extended beyond the prescribed circles, inconsistent with his usual practice of filling OMR sheets. He pointed to OMR sheets from other competitive examinations he had taken, which he said demonstrated his careful marking style. He sent e-mail representations to the respondent authorities on 15 July 2026 and 20 July 2026, requesting the original OMR sheet for verification, but received no response. He filed the writ petition seeking production of the original OMR sheet and a direction to award marks consistent with his answers in the question booklet.

The Legal Issue: Writ Jurisdiction Against Examination Evaluation

The respondents — the National Testing Agency (NTA) and connected CBSE-NEET units — opposed the petition on two primary grounds. They contended that the writ petition was premature because the petitioner had not availed the Grievance Redressal Forum constituted for complaints and objections relating to the NEET UG 2026 examination. They argued that the petitioner had bypassed a prescribed mechanism and could not seek relief directly under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court without first exhausting that remedy. They relied on a decision of the same Court in Ku. Amisha Gupta v. Union of India and Others (WPC No. 4027 of 2025, decided 13 August 2025).

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr Gautam Khetrapal, countered that the conduct of the respondent authorities in evaluating the answer sheet on the basis of an allegedly manipulated OMR was arbitrary and illegal, violating the petitioner's rights. He also placed reliance on an interim order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, in Hricha Prafull Deshpande Minor Thr Guardian Renuna P Deshpande v. The Union of India Thr The Secretary And Others (Writ Petition No. 8384 of 2026, dated 23 July 2026), where that court had directed production of the petitioner's answer sheets on the next date.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench, in an order authored by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, began by setting out what the petitioner's allegations actually rested on: his own comparison of the question booklet with the scanned OMR and a self-prepared comparison chart. The bench observed that apart from these assertions and apprehensions, no independent, credible or cogent material had been produced to show that the scanned OMR sheet differed from the original OMR sheet submitted during the examination, or that any manipulation had been carried out by the respondent authorities.

The bench held that serious allegations involving tampering of official examination records cannot be accepted on the basis of suspicion, conjecture or subjective belief, particularly in the absence of substantive evidence. It drew on the earlier Ku. Amisha Gupta decision, where this Court had directed NTA to produce the OMR sheet, and after the petitioner and her guardian saw it, they did not dispute it. That Court had found it a case of “concocted documents and pleading” used to invoke writ jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition. The present bench found the principle in Ku. Amisha Gupta squarely applicable: a mere allegation of discrepancy in an OMR sheet, unsupported by cogent evidence, does not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.

On the alternative remedy point, the bench found it clear from the record that the petitioner had not availed the grievance redressal mechanism provided for examination-related disputes before invoking the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. In the absence of any material showing that remedy was either unavailable or inefficacious, the petitioner could not bypass the prescribed mechanism and seek adjudication of disputed questions of fact directly under Article 226.

The bench also addressed the systemic concern: the NEET UG Examination is conducted on a national scale through a standardised and transparent process. Judicial interference with the evaluation process, based solely on an individual's apprehension unsupported by convincing evidence, would adversely affect the certainty, sanctity and finality of the examination system.

As for the Bombay High Court interim order relied upon by the petitioner, the bench declined to treat it as a governing precedent or as warranting similar directions. It observed that the order merely directed production of answer sheets on the next date and did not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties or lay down any binding principle of law. An interim order passed on the peculiar facts of one case, the bench said, does not constitute a binding precedent. Beyond that, the facts were distinguishable: the present petitioner had neither produced cogent material to substantiate tampering nor availed the grievance redressal mechanism before coming to Court.

Outcome

The Division Bench held that the petitioner had failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides or procedural irregularity on the part of the respondent authorities in the evaluation of his NEET UG 2026 examination. Consequently, it declined to issue any direction for production or supply of the original OMR sheet or for re-evaluation of the petitioner's answer sheet. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. There was no order as to costs.