Court Upholds NEET 2024 Question, Dismisses Petition on Syllabus Dispute.
06 August 2024
Education >> Miscellaneous
In a significant ruling, a recent writ petition challenging the validity of question number 11 in the NEET (UG)-2024 exam was dismissed by the court. The petitioner, a NEET candidate, had sought the declaration of the question as either incorrect or out of syllabus, alongside the award of 4 bonus marks to all candidates, as per the guidelines of the National Testing Agency (NTA). However, the court upheld the decision of the subject experts who confirmed that the question was in line with the prescribed syllabus, and the matter was dismissed due to lack of merit.
The Dispute and the Petitioner's Grievance:
The petitioner, who appeared for NEET (UG)-2024 on May 5, 2024, raised concerns over question number 11 from the Physics section of the T5 Test Booklet. The question, which was based on "radioactivity," was contested on the grounds that it fell outside the syllabus prescribed for NEET (UG)-2024. The syllabus, according to the petitioner, did not include the topic of "radioactivity," a concept traditionally part of previous NEET syllabi.
The petitioner argued that Clause 3.2 of the Information Bulletin of NEET (UG)-2024 provided that if a question was found to be out of syllabus or incorrect, all candidates should receive 4 bonus marks, irrespective of whether the question was attempted. Therefore, the petitioner contended that either the question should be dropped entirely or 4 bonus marks should be awarded to all candidates, ensuring parity.
Furthermore, the petitioner initially raised an additional issue regarding question number 23, but chose not to press this issue following a decision by the Supreme Court, which had already adjudicated on the matter.
NTA's Defense: Expert Opinions and Syllabus Confirmation:
The NTA, in its defense, asserted that the question was indeed part of the syllabus as prescribed by the National Medical Commission (NMC), which was appended as Appendix-III to the Information Bulletin. The syllabus, as per NTA's submission, covered topics such as the "composition and size of nucleus" and "atomic masses" under Unit 18, titled "Atoms and Nuclei," which included content on radioactivity.
The NTA also emphasized that it had followed a rigorous process in finalizing the answer keys. Multiple rounds of expert scrutiny had been conducted, including the consideration of challenges raised by candidates, prior to finalizing the answers. The experts, after thorough examination, found no merit in the claim that question number 11 was outside the syllabus.
Judicial Precedent and Scope of Judicial Intervention:
In its judgment, the court referenced several precedents, including the landmark case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (1983), where the Supreme Court held that key answers should be assumed correct unless proven demonstrably wrong. The court emphasized that judicial intervention in academic matters should be minimal, and unless a glaring mistake is apparent, the decision of the experts must be upheld.
The court also cited UPSC v. Rahul Singh (2018), where the Supreme Court underscored that courts should refrain from substituting their own judgment for that of subject experts, especially when the experts had already reviewed the question papers. In Wajda Tabasuum v. NTA (2021), the apex court had also ruled against re-evaluating the correctness of NEET questions after they had been scrutinized by expert panels.
In light of these principles, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the key answer to question number 11 was incorrect or that it was an out-of-syllabus question.
Expert Opinions Uphold the Question's Validity:
In their examination of question number 11, NTA's experts confirmed that the topic of radioactivity was adequately covered under the syllabus, particularly in Unit 18, which dealt with "Atoms and Nuclei." The experts further clarified that the question was designed to assess candidates' understanding of the fundamental concepts related to nuclear composition and the effects of radiation on atomic nuclei—key areas within the prescribed syllabus.
The Court’s Conclusion: Judicial Restraint in Academic Matters
The court concluded by reinforcing the well-established principle that judicial bodies are not equipped to challenge the expertise of academic panels. The experts' opinions must be given precedence unless they are found to be manifestly arbitrary or illegal. The court expressed its restraint, stating that it would not interfere with the decisions made by academic experts, as such decisions are beyond its domain of jurisdiction.
The petition was, therefore, dismissed with no merit and no orders for costs, upholding the decision of the NTA and the subject experts involved in setting the NEET (UG)-2024 question paper.
Key Takeaway: Expert Authority in Academic Disputes
This judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the principle that academic matters, especially those involving specialized knowledge like the NEET examination, should primarily be left to the discretion of subject experts. Judicial intervention is appropriate only when there is a clear demonstration of error, and not merely based on subjective interpretations of candidates or litigants.
In this case, the court's refusal to interfere highlights the importance of expert opinion in shaping and evaluating academic examinations. It also underscores the necessity for candidates to trust the judgment of academic bodies unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.