Delhi HC Declines to Refer NEET-UG 2026 Biology Question to Independent Expert, Dismisses Petition by 17-Year-Old Scoring 695/720

Justice Jasmeet Singh held that disputes over NEET-UG 2026 Question 150 raised inferential issues, not manifest errors, placing deference firmly with NTA's expert panel.

The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition filed by Kushagra Mittal, a 17-year-old student who scored 695 out of 720 marks in the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination and secured All India Rank 65, challenging the answer key for Question No. 150 of the Biology Section. Justice Jasmeet Singh, sitting singly, pronounced judgment on 11 August 2026, reserving it on 10 August 2026. The petitioner contended that option No. 2, which he had marked, was scientifically correct and that the National Testing Agency had wrongly treated option No. 3 as the sole correct answer. The court declined to constitute an independent expert committee, finding that the objections raised were inferential in nature and did not reveal a manifest or demonstrable error on the face of the record — the threshold required before a court may interfere with an expert body's answer key determination.

The Dispute Over Question No. 150

The NEET-UG 2026 examination was initially held on 3 May 2026. That examination was subsequently cancelled. A fresh examination followed on 21 June 2026. Upon release of the provisional answer key on 25 June 2026, Kushagra Mittal examined the answer recorded for Question No. 150 of the Biology Section, Test Booklet Code-80.

The question asked which statements about the reabsorption process in Henle's loop were correct, presenting four statements:

• (a) The descending limb of Henle's loop is permeable to water but almost impermeable to electrolytes.
• (b) Urine gets concentrated in Henle's loop.
• (c) Reabsorption of Na&sup+; and water takes place in Henle's loop.
• (d) Active or passive transport of electrolytes occurs in the ascending limb of Henle's loop.

Option No. 2 combined statements (a), (b) and (c). Option No. 3 combined statements (a), (b) and (d). NTA's final answer key, released on 16 July 2026, designated option No. 3 as correct. The petitioner had marked option No. 2. Because each question carries four marks for a correct answer and one negative mark for an incorrect answer, the petitioner lost five marks in total on this question.

The petitioner raised objections before NTA through the prescribed mechanism — paying the Rs. 200 non-refundable fee per question, submitting supporting documents, and sending a written representation. NTA's panel of subject experts from premier national institutions reviewed all challenges and left the answer to Question No. 150 unchanged, finding the objection incorrect and unsustainable.

What the Petitioner Argued

Mr. Nitin Soni, appearing for the petitioner, argued that all four answer options used the word “only,” thereby rendering none of the options strictly correct because statement (c) was also scientifically accurate. He placed on record a diagram from Chapter 16 of the NCERT textbook “Excretory Products and Their Elimination,” excerpts from the Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, and an opinion from Dr. Yogesh Singh, Professor, Department of Physiology, AIIMS Rishikesh.

The petitioner did not ask the court to substitute its own view for that of subject experts. Instead, he sought a reference to an independent expert body, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 641, and the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench decision in Shaureen Shamik Ambatkar v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4577. He also placed reliance on Aditya Singh v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9040, and Anjali Goswami v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6829, for the proposition that where more than one answer is equally appropriate, a candidate should not be penalised simply because the examiner preferred a different option.

Mr. Soni additionally submitted that any benefit arising from correction of Question No. 150 would flow to all candidates who had answered similarly, and that those candidates were not required to file separate petitions.

NTA's Response

Mr. Sanjay Khanna, standing counsel for NTA, described the authority's objection-challenge mechanism: provisional answer keys, scanned OMR sheets and recorded responses are displayed to candidates, who may then challenge answers upon payment of the prescribed fee. All challenges are placed before a panel of subject experts, and the final answer key is released based on their recommendations.

He pointed to Clause 15.2 of the NEET-UG 2026 Information Bulletin, which provides that the decision of the examining authority on candidate challenges shall be final and results will be declared solely on the basis of the final answer key. Clause 15.4 further states that no provision exists for rechecking or re-evaluation of answer sheets.

On the legal standard, Mr. Khanna relied upon Freya Kothari v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 5362, and on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, for the settled position that court interference with an expert-approved answer key is only warranted where the error is patent, manifest and demonstrable. He also relied on National Testing Agency v. Sanjeev Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1564, and decisions of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27, and Ran Vijay Singh across multiple submissions.

He pointed to Chapter 4, Point 3 of the Information Bulletin, which directs candidates to select not merely the correct answer but “the correct answer or the most appropriate answer,” and argued that determining which answer is most appropriate is a function exclusively reserved for the expert body.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Jasmeet Singh surveyed the settled legal position on judicial review of answer keys, drawing heavily on Ran Vijay Singh and Freya Kothari. From Ran Vijay Singh, the court extracted five governing principles: that re-evaluation or scrutiny by a court is only permissible in rare or exceptional cases where material error is demonstrated clearly without inferential reasoning; that courts lack the expertise to re-evaluate answer sheets; that correctness of key answers should be presumed; and that in cases of doubt, benefit goes to the examining authority, not the candidate.

The court accepted that total judicial abstention is not the rule — courts must act where an incorrect answer “stares in the face.” The standard articulated was that a manifest error must be a fact “so evident/stark, that no reasonable body of men well versed with a particular subject would regard it as correct.” The burden to establish this lies with the petitioner.

Against that standard, the court examined the material filed by the petitioner — the NCERT diagram, the Guyton and Hall textbook extract, and the AIIMS Rishikesh professor's opinion. Justice Singh concluded that the issues raised were “more in the nature of inferences/logical deductions and applications,” which the court could not evaluate given its limited knowledge of the subject. He stated plainly: “I, with my limited knowledge, am not in a position to analyse the material provided by the petitioner and give an opinion in petitioner's favour.”

The court distinguished Vanshika Yadav on facts. In that case, NTA itself had initially designated the fourth option as correct, then — on the basis of numerous representations — decided to treat both the second and fourth options as correct and awarded full marks to all students who had selected either. It was in that specific context, where the examining authority had already internally vacillated, that the Supreme Court constituted a three-member expert committee. No comparable internal revision had occurred with respect to Question No. 150 of NEET-UG 2026.

The court distinguished Shaureen Shamik Ambatkar equally. In that Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench decision, two questions were impugned: one on the ground that it fell outside the prescribed syllabus and the other on the ground that the question itself was incorrectly framed. Neither ground matches the present challenge, which disputes only the correctness of the chosen answer against scientific literature.

Justice Singh observed that several precedents relied on by the petitioner — involving examinations for judicial officer appointments and law institute admissions — arose from fields where courts are adequately equipped to evaluate the questions themselves. The same approach, the court held, is “not apposite in relation to a subject like Biology.”

On the proposition drawn from Aditya Singh that prior expert oversight cannot altogether foreclose judicial review, the court agreed with the principle but held that the question was when judicial review becomes warranted. On the facts before it, the threshold was not met.

Outcome

The writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 10274/2026, was dismissed along with all pending applications. The court did not grant interim relief, reserve any seat, or refer Question No. 150 to an independent expert body. Written submissions tendered by the petitioner's counsel and the counter affidavit filed by NTA were taken on record.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner is “an extremely bright, intelligent and hardworking student” but held that the factual matrix did not permit judicial assistance, expressing sympathy alone.