The Supreme Court of India has declined to entertain a plea alleging serious errors in three questions from the NEET-UG 2025 examination. A bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar advised the petitioner’s counsel to seek recourse through the relevant High Court, emphasizing that it did not wish to deny the petitioner any legal remedy.
The plea, filed by a NEET-UG 2025 aspirant, claimed that three questions in the examination were incorrect, which purportedly cost the petitioner 13 valuable marks. The petitioner’s counsel argued before the Court that two expert opinions had confirmed the alleged errors, supporting the claim that the questions were “absolutely wrong.”
“These three questions were absolutely wrong. I have taken two expert opinions and those experts also concur with my views. They have certified my views,” the counsel stated during the hearing. The petitioner also requested the apex court to appoint an expert panel to review the contentious questions within three days and provide their feedback.
However, the Supreme Court bench maintained a clear stance, noting that the examination process had already concluded. “You withdraw this and go to the High Court,” the bench advised, suggesting that a more appropriate forum for such a grievance would be the jurisdictional High Court. Ultimately, the petitioner’s counsel chose to withdraw the plea following the court’s recommendation.
The National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Undergraduate (NEET-UG), is responsible for organizing the exam for admissions into MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and other related programs in both government and private institutions across India.
This is not the first such petition received by the apex court regarding NEET-UG 2025. On July 4, the Supreme Court had similarly declined to hear a separate petition challenging the NEET-UG 2025 results, which alleged an error in one of the questions.
The court’s decision reinforces its approach to refrain from direct intervention in academic disputes unless broader legal principles are at stake. Affected candidates now have the option to approach the High Court, which may examine the technical merits of such issues in more detail.
