The Supreme Court expressed worries about the ad hoc character of the National Testing Agency (NTA) at a petition hearing on Friday about the NEET-UG 2026 cancellation due to a paper leak, stating that the issues will return unless clear accountability is rectified.
Petitions to dissolve the NTA were reviewed by a court made up of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe. The bench said during today’s hearing that the NTA could take a cue from organizations such as the UPSC, which administers large-scale competitive tests without any paper leaks.
“UPSC has never been a situation, you need to learn,” stated Justice Narasimha. “Until real accountability arises, the real problem won’t stop.” It will work when we know who is responsible, not in terms of so and so being accountable. Justice Narasimha stated, “It will be challenging unless you identify the specific duty bearers. The problem is that most institutions are ad hoc.” The phenomenon is widespread throughout the nation. The institution possesses the capability, not the individual, according to Justice Narasimha.
Following a brief hearing today, the Court requested that the Union of India submit an affidavit outlining the process for creating a “institutional memory of continuity” through the hiring of specialized personnel so that the NTA will have the intellectual and physical capacity to administer the tests flawlessly in the future.
In the primary petition, advocate Tanvi Dubey also provided the NTA with a set of recommendations.
Bench communicates with the monitoring committee’s chair
In accordance with the earlier directive, Dr. K Radhakrishnan, the head of the Monitoring Committee that the Court established in 2024 to offer suggestions to improve NEET, was present before the Court today.
Justice Narasimha initially questioned how the current dispute could develop in spite of the committee’s recommendations and the improvements that followed. “How much implementation monitoring has happened? How did this failure happen? If this incidence occurred in spite of a powerful committee, there must be a problem with the original suggestion or improper implementation, the judge said.
In response, Radhakrishnan told the Court that the committee had made about 60 short-term suggestions and 35 long-term recommendations, the most of which had already been put into practice.
With the exception of a few problems like power shortages, he claimed that NEET-PG 2025 was performed “mostly satisfactorily” and that the revisions had generally produced favorable effects.
Radhakrishnan stated that the committee had made recommendations pertaining to both the pre-examination and post-examination phases in response to the issue surrounding NEET-UG this year.
However, Justice Narasimha questioned him about whether the committee had carefully considered the kinds of shortcomings that are currently being accused.
In response, Radhakrishnan stated that preventing question paper manipulation had been the committee’s top priority at the time. He informed the Court that the weaknesses discovered this year had been fixed for the planned re-NEET exam, which is set for next month, despite the fact that numerous protections had been put in place.
The Bench also requested information about how the committee operates.
Justice Narasimha questioned, “Does the committee meet regularly?”
The judge changed the topic to institutional accountability when Radhakrishnan gave an affirmative response.
In his appearance on behalf of the Center, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reassured the Court that the government was taking the problem very seriously, pointing out that it directly impacted the youth of the nation.
However, Justice Narasimha compared the Union Public Service Commission’s (UPSC) examinations to those of other examination boards and noted that these disputes had not emerged.
Radhakrishnan went into further detail about the committee’s conclusions about the NTA’s fundamental flaws later in the meeting. According to him, the committee concluded that the agency lacked adequate domain experts and suggested bringing in experts from several systems, including those who administer the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE).
He added that important changes had been made in the formerly susceptible areas of question paper handling and transportation.
After then, Justice Narasimha commented on the ad hoc nature of NTA and expanded the conversation to the more general topic of institution-building in India.
The Solicitor General told the Bench that a thorough investigation of the entire test process, from the printing press to the point at which a candidate receives the question paper, had been conducted in the wake of last year’s issue. He said that new weaknesses had been found during the most recent evaluation cycle and that remedial measures had been developed.
Mehta, however, argued that even while the committee had already identified the pertinent areas and the reforms will be put into place prior to the next inspection, it would not be acceptable to make some security-related measures public.
“The Hon’ble Prime Minister is personally supervising it,” SG stated.
According to Justice Narasimha, what transpired was “traumatic” for the millions of students who studied for the test for years. “We shouldn’t let our kids down because it causes a great deal of emotional and temporal pain.”
In order to improve the system, Justice Narasimha recommended establishing a long-term framework for receiving and assessing input.
“You can establish a small monitoring committee to accept such suggestions and collaborate with leading universities,” he said.
Justice Narasimha supported the concept of long-term academic cooperation when the Solicitor General suggested that IIT experts might be involved: “Have some collaboration full-time with some universities.” Techniques and concepts are constantly evolving. The judge emphasized the necessity of ongoing institutional and technological innovation in exam administration, saying, “For example, in AI, we would be coordinating with a university.”
Context
It had complained about the NEET-UG 2026 having to be canceled due to a paper leak during the previous hearing. The National Testing Agency (NTA) has not learnt its lesson, the Court stated orally, despite the directives it made in 2024 on the paper leak two years ago.
In addition to requesting a status report from the NTA regarding the actions taken in accordance with the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee, which was established in accordance with the Court’s 2024 ruling to suggest measures to strengthen the NEET mechanism, it issued notice on petitions filed by physicians and medical students seeking to replace the NTA.
The Union Government established the High-level Committee in response to the 2024 NEET UG leak. Dr. K Radhakrishnan, a former ISRO chairman, presided over it. In the 2024 case of Vanshika Yadav v. UOI, the Supreme Court declined to suspend the exam, but it did provide a number of directives to address the paper leak and a standard for canceling public exams.
Exam security, paper transportation, CCTV surveillance, candidate verification, encryption protocols, technological safeguards, real-time monitoring, grievance redressal, and international best practices are all areas where the Court has expanded the mandate of Dr. Radhakrishnan’s committee. It particularly instructed the committee to assess the feasibility of more stringent identification verification procedures, digital tracking, safe transit systems, surprise inspections, and extensive CCTV surveillance.
On December 17, 2024, the Union Government submitted a report outlining the actions taken in response to the High-Level Committee of Experts’ (HLCE) recommendations. The HLCE suggested “Reformation of National Common Entrance Testing,” which included bolstering the NTA, institutional collaboration with States, and the participation of specialized testing and knowledge partners, according to the compliance report.
According to the NTA’s affidavits, the most recent meeting of Dr. Radhakrishan’s Committee included policy discussions about whether NEET UG should remain a pen and paper exam or whether a switch to a computer-based test is necessary, among other topics.
In consultation with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the NTA has chosen to administer NEET UG using a computer-based test during the upcoming exam cycle.
Information about the petitions
The current petitions were submitted against the backdrop of the cancellation of NEET-UG 2026. The United Doctors Front (UDF) made a request to dissolve the NTA because to its “systemic failure” in administering NEET-UG 2026. More than 23 lakh pupils took the test, she said.
Through legislation passed by Parliament, the petition aims to establish a statutory national testing organization with clear legal authority, standards for transparency, and direct accountability to the Legislature. In order to guarantee “zero-leak” integrity, the petitioner has also requested a court-monitored commission to supervise the changeover of future national exams.
The Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) filed another appeal asking for instructions to replace or drastically alter the NTA and to administer a new NEET-UG 2026 exam under court supervision.
According to the UDF appeal, the ongoing compromise of NEET exams impacts the destiny of over 22.7 lakh students and breaches Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The appeal emphasizes how the NEET UG 2026 exam was tainted in spite of NTA’s guarantees about protections.
The appeal emphasizes how the NTA continues to carry out sovereign duties pertaining to national examinations while avoiding direct parliamentary scrutiny and required Comptroller and Auditor General audits. The Supreme Court’s remarks in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India on NEET-UG 2024, where the Court advised the NTA against “flip-flops” and administrative errors, are also included in the plea.
It also depends on the K. Radhakrishnan Committee’s recommendations to move away from commercial vendors and toward computer-based or hybrid examination approaches. The argument argues that the government failed to stop organized cheating networks and paper leaks even after the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was passed.
According to the petition, students and families have experienced psychological pain, financial difficulty, and uncertainty as a result of the recurrent exam leaks. It also draws attention to student suicides that are purportedly connected to stress from exams.
The petition requests a number of remedies, including the dissolution of the NTA in its current form, the adoption of legislation creating a formal national testing body with clear standards for accountability and transparency, and the appointment of a committee under court supervision to oversee upcoming national exams.
FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY AND ORS. | W.P. (C) No. 651/2026 and others
