Supreme Court orders IIT Delhi in NEET case, 'Form a committee and...'

NEET UG Exam: The Supreme Court heard the NEET-UG 2024 exam case today. Let us tell you that more than 40 petitions have been filed in the court regarding the NEET controversy. During the hearing, the Supreme Court has also given an instruction to IIT Delhi. The court asked IIT Delhi to constitute a team of the concerned subject to form an opinion on the correct answer to a question in the exam by Tuesday.

IIT Delhi got these instructions

During the hearing, the Supreme Court has also taken cognizance of the petition which states that giving or not giving marks for the answer of a particular question affects the final merit list. The court directed the Director of IIT Delhi to constitute a team of 3 experts of the concerned subject to form an opinion on the correct answer to a question in the exam by 12 noon on Tuesday. Let us tell you that some students challenged the NTA's decision to give marks for two options of the question. Due to this, the court has given this direction to IIT Delhi. At the same time, the court said that the hearing will continue tomorrow on July 23 in the case of allegations of paper leak and tampering.

CJI commented on giving grace marks

During the hearing, the CJI commented on giving grace marks regarding the question. During the NEET hearing itself, a lawyer said that 44 students have got full marks due to the grace marks given for a question. To this, the CJI said that according to the latest NCERT version, option 4 is the correct answer, then those who answer option 2 cannot be given full marks. There, I think he may have a point. A possible answer to the argument that if you do not know the answer, the assumption is that you do not know the answer.

Solicitor General gave this answer

On this, the Solicitor General said that I will try to satisfy this court on this. To which the CJI said that but the logic is not to give any marks but give full marks only to those who have selected option 4 but by giving marks to those who have answered option 2 also, you are increasing the number of toppers. Why did the NTA finally come to the conclusion of giving marks to both the options?

To this the Solicitor General replied that because both were possible answers. To which the counsel for the petitioner said that this is not possible. Then the CJI said that by giving marks to option 2 you are going against your own rule, can't the old version be followed?