
The Supreme Court has given instructions to the Center and NTA in the case related to NEET-UG paper leak. The court has said that after the paper leak, a detailed affidavit should be filed detailing whatever progress has been made in implementing the reforms. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said the affidavit should reflect steps taken to institutionalize the reforms rather than relying on ad hoc measures.
The Supreme Court sought information about the proposed governing board, expert-led units, nomination of stakeholders and implementation of the recommendations of the high-powered committee in ten areas. The Supreme Court also asked the Center to explain the role and progress of the recently appointed additional directors general for security, surveillance and vigilance. The Supreme Court also sought status reports on reforms at every stage of the examination cycle, before, during and after the examination.
‘This was only a temporary measure’
The court has also asked the central government to share with the state and district authorities the progress made on testing methods, examinations to be conducted in multiple sessions, examination centres, question papers, printing and transportation. The Supreme Court also sought information about the proposal to change to Computer-Based Testing (CBT) and data security measures. Justice Narasimha said that the deployment of the Indian Air Force after the paper leak (for safe transportation of question papers) was only a stopgap measure and cannot be a permanent solution.
The Supreme Court also asked the Center to inform about its proposal on technologies like DigiYatra for verification of candidates. The Supreme Court accepted the assurance of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that a new affidavit would be filed. The Supreme Court said that we will keep a close eye on this. We will ensure that the reforms are institutionalized. The court said that we will keep an eye on this throughout the year and the next hearing of the case will be on August 3.
Leave a Reply