Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed four petitions filed by NEET 2026 aspirants challenging the results declared by the National Testing Agency (NTA) and imposed a litigation cost of ₹5,000 on each petitioner for approaching the court with incorrect and unsubstantiated claims.
The order was passed on Thursday by a Division Bench comprising Justice N. B. Suryawanshi and Justice A. D. Shinde at the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The petitioners—Hricha, Soham, Atharva, and Rahul—had alleged that the results declared by the NTA following the NEET re-examination held on June 21, 2026, contained evaluation errors and discrepancies in their answer sheets.
However, the court rejected the allegations after conducting a detailed verification of the original examination records.
Original Answer Sheets Verified
During the hearing, Advocate Rohit Sarvadnya, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India, argued that the NTA had committed no error in evaluating the answer sheets or declaring the results.
To ensure transparency, the High Court directed the NTA to produce the original answer sheets from Delhi in sealed packets. The Bench personally examined the answer sheets and also allowed the students, their parents, and their legal representatives to inspect the original records.
Following the verification, the court found that the marks awarded by the NTA accurately reflected the answers recorded by the candidates and that there were no discrepancies or irregularities in the evaluation process.
Court Imposes Costs on Petitioners
Observing that the petitions were based on incorrect and unsupported information, the High Court dismissed all four cases and imposed a litigation cost of ₹5,000 on each petitioner.
The Bench noted that allegations against examination authorities should be made only after proper verification of facts and evidence, emphasizing the importance of relying on original records before challenging examination results.
Significance of the Verdict
The ruling reinforces the credibility of the National Testing Agency’s evaluation process and highlights the judiciary’s insistence on factual accuracy in legal challenges involving competitive examinations.
Legal experts believe the judgment serves as a reminder that courts will carefully scrutinize examination records before entertaining allegations of irregularities and may impose costs where claims are found to be baseless.
