Shreya Gupta
On 4th July, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea challenging the final answer key and result of the NEET-UG 2025 examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). The plea, which was filed by a candidate named Shivam Gandhi Raina, questioned the correctness of the answer provided by NTA to one specific question in the Biology section — Question No. 136 from Code No. 47.
Shivam Raina argued that there was an error in the answer key and that the correct option, based on the authoritative NCERT Class XI Biology textbook, should have been different. The question pertained to the regulation of cardiac activities and presented four options:
A: Nodal Tissue
B: A special neural centre in the medulla oblongata
C: Adrenal medullary hormones
D: Adrenal cortical hormones
with the multiple-choice options involving various combinations of these elements.
According to Raina, option 3 — which includes A, B, C, and D — was the accurate answer, but NTA’s key marked a different choice as correct.
During the hearing, a bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan made it clear that the Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter. Justice Narasimha emphasized that although there might be some merit in the argument — particularly the claim that multiple answers could be technically correct — judicial intervention at this stage in an all-India examination would create significant complications. He cited a recent precedent from just two days prior, when the Court dismissed a similar case, thereby reinforcing the principle of judicial restraint in exam-related disputes, especially in the absence of systemic irregularities.
In response, Senior Advocate R. Balasubramaniam, representing the petitioner, urged the Court to reconsider, citing the Supreme Court’s previous interference in the NEET-UG 2024 examination. In that instance, the Court had directed corrections in the answer key based on an expert report from IIT-Delhi, acknowledging the serious impact such errors could have on students’ careers. He argued that even a single mark could significantly affect a candidate’s rank and future prospects, pointing out that Raina’s current All India Rank was 6783 and General Category Rank was 3195 — both of which could have improved had the answer key been corrected, granting him five additional marks. He also requested the constitution of an expert committee to review the disputed question and a stay on the ongoing counselling process as interim relief.
However, the bench remained firm in its position, stating that while the 2024 intervention was justified due to widespread grievances and significant flaws in that year’s exam process, this particular plea did not reflect similar systemic issues. The Court concluded that it could not interfere in an individual’s grievance over a single question in a national-level examination, thereby dismissing the petition. This decision underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to intervene in academic matters unless there is compelling evidence of large-scale irregularities or procedural lapses that affect the integrity of the examination process as a whole.
Case Title: Shivam Gandhi Raina v. National Testing Agency
Case Number: WP(C) 620/2025
Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: dkbusinessnetwork@gmail.com
