The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court issued notices to the Central Government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) on petitions filed by three NEET-UG aspirants who alleged discrepancies in the results declared on July 16. The students claimed that the marks awarded to them were significantly lower than the scores they calculated themselves using their OMR sheets and the official answer key.

A division bench of Justice Nitin Suryawanshi and Justice Abasaheb Shinde directed the NTA to produce the petitioners’ original answer sheets before the Court at the next hearing while issuing notices on the petitions filed by Hricha Deshpande, Soham Gavate and Atharva Jagtap.

The Court said:

“Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on July 7, 2026. Respondents are directed to produce the petitioners’ answer sheets on the next date. List the matters in urgent category.”

According to the petition filed by Hricha Deshpande through advocate Amit Yadkikar, she appeared for the re-NEET (UG) examination held on June 21. She said that after accessing her OMR sheet on July 15, she calculated that she should score at least 619 marks. However, later the same day, she received another OMR sheet from the NTA by email, which was claimed to be her actual OMR sheet. According to her, this second OMR sheet showed answers that gave her only 280 marks, which was far lower than her expected score.

In her petition, Deshpande stated:

“The Petitioner bears a clean record and has been a bonafide aspirant throughout the process beginning from the preparatory stage till date. Despite suffering the setback and tremendous mental, psychological and physical stress of the entire examination process coming under the scanner of investigation and criminal misdeeds, the Petitioner has remained steadfast in her bonafide aspiration of serving the medical field. The Petitioner has a strong prima facie case based on contemporaneous grievance, documentary inconsistency, and detailed comparative analysis. The balance of convenience is in her favour because the Respondents lose nothing by producing the original OMR and preserving records, whereas the Petitioner will suffer irreversible educational prejudice if counselling proceeds solely on the basis of the disputed result. This directly affects the Petitioner’s educational future and professional prospects. Fairness, transparency and due process in the recording and evaluation of responses are thus integral to Article 21.”

The petition also said that during the examination, Deshpande had marked her answers in the question booklet, which candidates were allowed to keep. Later, when the NTA uploaded scanned copies of the OMR sheets and machine-recorded responses on its official website, she checked her OMR on the portal and found that it correctly matched the answers she had marked during the exam.

The petition further stated:

“Since no discrepancies were found during this online viewing of the OMR, the Petitioner being convinced that the OMR flashed bore her accurate details and responses tendered by her, she approved the OMR. Subsequently, on July 15, at 5:44 PM, she received an email from NTA enclosing an OMR sheet corresponding to her application and roll number, but the attached OMR was materially different, incomplete, and reflected a drastically lower number of attempted responses in Physics and Chemistry than the OMR earlier viewed on the portal. This discrepancy experienced by the Petitioner was immediately pointed out by email to NTA on by 11:34 PM. Despite this prompt grievance before declaration of result, the Respondents proceeded to publish the final answer key and result on July 16.”

Deshpande alleged that even though she informed the NTA about the discrepancy before the results were declared, the agency finalised her score without addressing or resolving her complaint.

She said that although she clearly pointed out that the OMR sheet sent to her by email was different from the one shown on the NTA portal and did not match the answers she had actually marked, the NTA gave no explanation before announcing the results.

The other two petitioners have made similar allegations. They also claim that the OMR sheets they viewed did not match the marks they were finally awarded.

The High Court will hear the matter again on July 30.

Case Details: Hricha Prafull Deshpande vs Union of India (Writ Petition No. 8384 of 2026)