Madras HC orders NTA to give grace marks to NEET candidate

The National Testing Agency (NTA) had prescribed an incorrect question in the NEET exam, which led to an SC applicant’s rejection from the MBBS program. The Madras High Court ordered the concerned parties to grant four grace marks to the applicant.

The panel was considering a writ appeal from T. Udhayakumar, who chose not to respond to question 97 since none of the crucial responses seemed to be accurate. He decided to leave it unanswered out of concern for losing one mark for providing the incorrect response. However, he only received 92 out of 720, falling one shy of the SC candidate cutoff number of 93. He posted a message online. But it wasn’t given any thought. As a result, he filed a writ petition but later withdrew it without getting permission from the court to move it again at a later time. thus the current appeal.

“It is also the admitted case of both parties that the key answers to the question have been wrongly given. The appellant/writ petitioner, who is from a disadvantaged community, secured 92 marks in the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (UG) 2022 examination. However, due to the incorrect key answers provided for question No.97, he failed to secure the four marks.

In a recent order allowing the appeal as a special case, the first bench of acting chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar stated that it is not out of context to mention that Article 46 of the Constitution states that the State shall protect the economic interests of the weaker sections of society, in particular of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The bench stated that because the NTA is a State-owned agency, it cannot refuse to provide the appellant, who is from a disadvantaged social group, the four grace marks. The courts determined that the appellant’s writ appeal is unquestionably admissible.

The relief provided should be confined to the appellant alone, as he has diligently approached this court without any delay. The bench made it clear that this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and may not be treated as a precedent.