Nagpur (Maharashtra) [India], August 31 (ANI): The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a 17-year-old NEET aspirant who claimed that she expected around 680 marks out of 720, against the 160 marks awarded by the National Testing Agency (NTA), after inspection of her original OMR answer sheet established that the score declared by the agency was correct. The court imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner.
A division bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas, in its judgment dated August 24, dealt with the writ petition filed by Shrishti Shantibodh Mishra, a minor aspiring for admission to the MBBS course, through her natural guardian mother.
The petitioner had challenged the scorecard dated July 16, 2026, issued by the NTA, contending that the award of only 160 marks out of 720 in NEET was arbitrary and did not reflect the responses actually marked by her. She sought, among other reliefs, setting aside of the scorecard, production of the original OMR answer sheet and verification and re-tallying of the responses recorded in the physical OMR sheet.
During the pendency of the petition, the authorities permitted the student to personally inspect the original OMR answer sheet in order to ensure fairness.
The petitioner had also filed an additional affidavit on August 7 stating that she was ready to remain present for inspection of the original OMR sheet and understood that consequences permissible under law could follow if her contention was found to be incorrect.
The court noted that throughout the proceedings the petitioner remained confident that the 160 marks awarded to her were incorrect. According to her own assessment after tallying her responses with the answer key, she expected to score approximately 680 out of 720.
However, after physically inspecting the original OMR answer sheet, the petitioner's counsel informed the court, on her instructions, that she had found the scorecard awarding 160 marks out of 720 to be correct. The bench consequently observed that
no dispute survived and said the contention raised by the petitioner had been found to be "totally incorrect."
Appearing for the respondents, the Centre's counsel argued that the allegations against the NTA were without foundation and that such pleadings had tarnished the image of the authorities, including the testing agency. The respondents also pointed out that the petitioner had been put on notice about possible consequences if her version was ultimately found incorrect.
The High Court expressed concern over the manner in which the case had been pursued. It observed that while genuine cases could exist, in the present matter the petitioner had consistently maintained that the scorecard was wrong and realised that her version was incorrect only after physically inspecting the OMR sheet.
The bench further noted that the matter had been listed on several occasions and that the petitioner had repeatedly insisted on physical verification of the answer sheet. This required the authorities to put the administrative machinery in motion for verification. The court described the petitioner's conduct in the circumstances as "totally blameworthy."
The bench said it would have imposed costs of Rs 50,000, but considering that the interests of a student were involved, it reduced the amount and imposed costs of Rs 25,000.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 25,000 and directed that the amount be deposited by the petitioner's natural guardian mother within four weeks in the Public Welfare Account maintained with the Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
The NTA's official NEET portal currently carries the NEET-UG 2026 scorecard, OMR-related information and public notices concerning claims over OMR answer sheets. (ANI)
Bombay HC dismisses NEET aspirant's plea over marks, imposes Rs 25,000 costs
