The significance of this development was that the test was postponed on June 22nd, one day after the government notified the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (The Act).

Exam paper leaks have been an issue for long and the government’s preparedness looked haphazard. The hearing about scrapping of NEET concluded with the Supreme Court refusing to cancel this years’ NEET-UG examination stating that there was little evidence to suggest that a systemic question paper leak occurred in a way that it could disrupt sanctity of the exam.

The CBI is investigating the NEET UG paper leak case and has arrested multiple people in relation to the case. It was reported  that more than 10 people have been arrested by the CBI during the process of investigation.

In this context, it becomes important to understand what the new act promises in the realm of protecting the fairness and integrity of public examinations.

State specific laws dominated the regime until now

There have been multiple state specific legislations related to examination malpractices. Other than that, the body conducting the examination would release guidelines or regulations over malpractices. For example, Andhra Pradesh passed an act over this issue more than 25 years ago. The Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 has a jail term starting at 6 months for neglect of duties to 7 years for other serious offences under the act. Recently, Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Rajasthan have also passed laws penalising paper leaks and other related offences.

Centre’s public examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

As the Ministry of Education and the autonomous agency under it-the National Testing Agency face criticism for cancelling the UGC-NET 2024 exam held in June 2024 due to intelligence inputs suggesting a compromise of exam’s integrity, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions notified The Act which received the President’s assent in February.

What does the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 say?

Unfair Means

The purpose of the act is to prevent unfair means in public examinations. The act defines ‘Public Examination Authority’ as an authority as specified by the central government by a notification, from time to time for conducting the public examination. ‘Public Examination’ is defined as any examination conducted by the Public Examination Authority as specified in the Schedule of the act, or an authority notified by the Central Government. In the Schedule, the following are the authorities stated in the Schedule of The Act:

1. Union Public Service Commission.
2. Staff Selection Commission.
3. Railway Recruitment Boards.
4. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection.
5. Ministries or Departments of the Central Government and their attached and subordinate offices for recruitment of staff.
6. National Testing Agency.
7. Such other authority as may be notified by the Central Government.

Unfair Means could include acts or omissions by individuals or groups or institutions in relation to leakage of question paper, taking possession of the Optical Mark Recognition Paper (s) without authorisation, directly or indirectly assisting the candidate taking examination, altering the assessment except to correct a bona fide error, violation of security measures, tampering with computer network, manipulation in seating arrangements, allocation of dates and shifts of candidates to facilitate adopting unfair means etc.

Section 5 of the act also prohibits the entry of a person with the intent to disrupt the conduct of public examination into the premises of the examination centre. It also prohibits the opening and distribution of question papers before the time fixed, by any person who is entrusted with the purpose of opening and distribution. Section 5(3) states that no person shall reveal more than what is authorised to, which would result in an undue advantage or wrongful gain.

Service providers

The act defines Service providers as “any agency, organisation, body, association of persons, business entity, company, partnership or single proprietorship firm, including its associates, subcontractors and provider of support of any computer resource or any material, by whatever name it may be called, which is engaged by the public examination authority for conduct of public examination.”

Essentially, the printers of question paper, the logistics providers for the papers etc are all covered under this definition. There are different and more severe penalties for Service Providers since there is a special duty entrusted to them.

Section 6 of the act states if any person, or group of persons or institutions commit any unfair means of a conspiracy for unfair means or disrupts the conduct of public examinations, the service provider is responsible to report such offence to police and the examination authority.

Offences and penalties

The offences under the act are all cognisable meaning that the police can arrest without a warrant, non-bailable-meaning that the bail is not a matter of right for the accused and non-compoundable-meaning that the accused cannot resolve the issue with a compromise.

Section 8 of the Act states that if a service provider or any person associated with it will be deemed to have committed an offence if he fails to report incidence of unfair means or commission of any offence.

Section 10 of the act states that resorting to unfair means would attract at least 3 years of imprisonment which could extend up to five years with fine up to Rs. 10 Lakh. The section also provides a special punishment for the service provider with a fine of Rs.1 Crore and the cost of examination if it resorts to unfair means, and to that extent makes the connivance of a director or a senior management personnel of the service provider liable to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Crore and an imprisonment between 3 and 10 years.

Investigation and special emphasis on organised crime

Organised Crime is defined in the act as an unlawful activity committed by a person or a group of persons indulging in unfair means in collusion and conspiracy to pursue or promote a shared interest for wrongful gain in respect of Public Examination. Section 11 states that if a person or group of persons, including the examination authority or service provider or any institution commits an organised crime, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than 5 years but may extend to 10 years of imprisonment; and a fine of not less than Rs. 1 Crore.

Miscellaneous

Section 16 gives powers to central government to notify rules to carry out provisions of the act; Section 17 mandates that rules be laid out in front of the Parliament for a total of period of thirty days. Section 13 deems the members, officers and employees of the Public Examination Authority to be public servants and Section 17 protects the action taken by them in good faith.

Will the public examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 make a difference?

This is one such kind of a law where you cannot go wrong with the legislative provisions but all of it could go wrong with the implementation of the act. Therefore, the answer to the question whether the act will make a difference or not lies in knowing whether the act is implementable by the established systems in the country or not.

The rules under Section 16 were notified on 23^rd June 2024 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions-a ministry with the Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the helm since 2014. The institution that has been at the centre of the recent paper leak scandal- the National Testing Agency-NTA is under the Ministry of Education. The bodies covered by the rules are under various ministries such as Railway, Finance and Educations. Therefore, these bodies will have to adopt a streamlines standard procedure as laid down in the rules for effective implementation and cross ministry coordination. As far as act making a difference is concerned, we will soon know based on how the investigating agencies pursue the NEET paper leaks.

(The author is part of the CJP’s legal research team)

Related:

Abolish ‘discriminatory and imbalanced’ NEET exam: Justice A.K. Rajan Committee 2021

SC asks NTA to ensure that even ‘0.001% negligence’ is investigated, while states of Bihar & Gujarat remain the epicentre of the NEET UG…

NEET 2024 Row: Supreme Court cancels grace marks, orders re-test for affected students

The post What is the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the last hearing concerning the irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 on July 8, the Supreme Court had directed the union government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) to assess the extent of the damages caused by the exam paper leak/breach. Additionally, the court instructed the NTA to identify if the beneficiaries of the breach could be distinguished from the honest candidates. Just two days later, on July 10, the NTA and the Ministry of Education (MoE) filed affidavits in the Supreme Court, which included an analysis report signed by IIT Madras.

The union government’s decision to assign the analysis task to IIT Madras has sparked allegations of quid pro quo. Critics suspect that the institute might be repaying a favour to the government following the mishap during the JEE (Advanced) in 2017. This choice also raises questions about potential anomalies and conflict of interest, as IIT Madras, being the organizing institute for JEE (Advanced) 2024, was a member of the governing body of NTA. Such concerns cast doubt on the objectivity and impartiality of the reports produced by IIT Madras for the government and NTA.

It must be noted that in the report by IIT Madras, submitted along with the affidavit by MoE clearly mentions that the analysis was not conducted by an IIT Madras team by themselves, rather, the analysis was performed by the NTA team which was only verified by the IIT Madras team. This is significant because this allows for NTA to cherry pick parameters and representations of the data in order to downplay the possibilities of widespread malpractices which would tarnish its reputation.

Moreover, in the IIT Madras report, it is mentioned that Python was used for data processing, PostgreSQL for data storage, and Metabase for analysis. However, the report fails to explain the methodology or the logic behind the selection of each parameter used in their analysis. There is no detailed explanation of the criteria or the reasoning for choosing specific parameters to represent in the report, nor how these parameters would effectively indicate whether there is widespread or localized malpractice. This lack of transparency in their methodology raises doubts about the validity of their conclusions regarding the integrity of the exam process.

Affidavit by Ministry of Education

The report states that the marks distribution follows a bell-shaped curve, indicating no abnormality. The NTA reasons that, given there are only 1.1 lakh seats, they analysed the data of the top 1.4 lakh students. However, half of these seats are in private colleges where any qualified candidate (more than 12 lakh in total) can secure admission with sufficient funds. Therefore, individuals aiming merely to qualify for NEET might also engage in malpractice, and they could fall anywhere within the rank ranges up to around 12 lakhs. The assumption that malpractices occurred exclusively within the top 5% or that everyone who engaged in malpractice ended up in the top 5% is unfounded. In fact, data (Annexure A1, page 21-23 of NTA affidavit) from Bihar reveals that candidates who obtained the question paper before the exam scored different marks, many of which are not within the top 1.4 lakh range. Consequently, it is not possible to determine if malpractice occurred by merely examining the curve. If the candidates who engaged in malpractices scored varying marks, and rise in marks due to malpractice is evenly distributed across different ranges, that would still produce a bell curve. Hence, the current analysis fails to account for the potential widespread nature of malpractice.

The NTA claims that the lack of a localized increase in toppers at specific exam centres is evidence against widespread malpractice in the exam. However, this argument is flawed. If malpractice is widespread and affects most exam centres, localized analysis will fail to detect anomalies because the issue is systemic. The NTA is not attempting to investigate potential systemic malpractice that could impact the entire exam. Instead, they are using the absence of localized malpractice using absence of localized inflation to argue against widespread malpractice. This approach ignores the possibility that mark inflation and other irregularities could be occurring uniformly across all centres, indicating a systemic rather than localized issue.

Tables 6 and 7 in the report present centre-wise rank lists, highlighting the centres with the maximum toppers. Table 6 shows data for 2024, while Table 7 shows data for 2023. They compare data of different centres from two different years and focus on the fact that in both cases, only two students from each centre made it to the top 100 ranks. They use this as an argument to deny localized malpractice, claiming that “if there was localized malpractice, then this number would have been much larger.” This is a baseless assertion because localized malpractice could also result in an increase in the number of people who qualified or achieved higher ranks than they would have without malpractice, and not necessarily only in the top ranks. The assumption that anyone engaging in malpractice would end up in the top rank list is flawed.

Here, the report emphasizes that this year there are only two students from each centre in the top 100, just as there were last year, indicating no localized malpractice. It is to be observed that here, where there is no increase in the number of toppers, they present it is evidence for lack of localized malpractice. However, in the case of an increase in the number of toppers, instead of investigating the possibility of a malpractice, they simply downplay the significance of the increase and move on. For example, in Table 1, the number candidates from Bengaluru to reach top 100 ranks increased from 1 in 2023 to 5 in 2024, which is a staggering 400% increase in Bengaluru alone. However, the NTA merely commented that this was the maximum increase seen in this category downplaying its significance and moved on to claim that this data does not indicate abnormality instead of investigating this significant increase in the number of toppers there. This raises doubts on the consistency of metrics used by the NTA to indicate malpractices.

It is unclear what magnitude of increase or decrease in the number of toppers in which category is deemed normal and how NTA and IIT Madras arrived at these standards. Importantly, when implying that the increase from 2023 to 2024 is not abnormal, it is essential to compare this with the increase from 2022 to 2023 and the previous years. However, IIT Madras did not consider the data of toppers from NEET 2022 in these tables. Without this comparison, the qualitative claim of the increase being normal enough to dismiss the possibility of malpractice is unsubstantiated.

Plotting the data in table 16, which is the only table in which data from 2022 is included, it is clearly seen that there is a huge abnormal mark inflation in 2024. In the report, NTA maintains that the increase in the number of toppers in individual centres and cities is not inexplicably abnormal. This logically suggests that more centres contributed to toppers in 2024 compared to 2023. There should also be a significant increase in the number of centres producing toppers in 2024 that never had toppers in previous years. As mentioned above, NTA had dismissed localized malpractice citing the lack of increase in toppers across years. If we follow the NTA’s logic that an increasing number of students from certain centres can indicate alleged malpractice, then the NTA should actually scrutinize data on centres or cities that never had toppers in previous years but suddenly have toppers in 2024. According to their own logic, this would be a better metric to identify potential centres where malpractice could have occurred. However, they do not provide this data. Instead, they are cherry-picking data that suggests consistency between this year and previous years, thereby claiming that there is no malpractice.

Moreover, NTA simply attributes this increase in the marks obtained by students to 25% reduction in syllabus.  However, this analysis cannot determine whether the inflation is due to the syllabus reduction, a decrease in exam difficulty, or malpractice. The NTA’s justification that a 25% syllabus reduction caused this significant mark inflation is unfounded and appears to be a misleading explanation, which IIT Madras has unfortunately endorsed.

There are two primary issues: mark inflation and malpractices. While this document is ostensibly commissioned to investigate malpractices, it tacitly downplays the mark inflation that has occurred, dismissing it as normal and simply attributing it to the increase in the number of candidates and the reduction in the syllabus.

Affidavit by NTA

The following graph indicates a significant increase in the number of students scoring higher marks in 2024 compared to 2023. This is evident from the higher tail extending towards higher scores.

NTA has only considered the data for the years 2023 and 2024 and claims that the increase in the number of toppers from 2023 to 2024 is “not significantly higher in number” than previous years. When claiming that the increase in number of toppers from 2023 to 2024 is not significant, it is essential to contextualise this claim historically with data of number of toppers from previous years, which the NTA has conveniently not done.

NTA explains that out of the 67 candidates who initially scored full marks, 6 of them got that score because of grace marks, which was later redacted and a retest was held for those candidates. As none of them scored 720 in the retest, the number of toppers is now 61. Further, it states that, out of the 61, 44 candidates went from scoring 715 to 720, on account of the revision of answer key, and hence the “actual” candidates with full marks are only 17.

Forty-four candidates ended up getting full marks after selecting an answer which is accepted as correct according to the NTA, causing a revision in the answer key. However, NTA, weaponising its own fault of providing two correct options to a question, is trying to create a false difference between “actual” toppers and other toppers, to downplay the mark inflation this year as evident with 61 toppers with full marks.

Moreover, the report attributes the increase in number of high scorers to 25% reduction in syllabus. This argument of NTA must be justified by demonstrating that students across different percentiles—those at the bottom, middle, and top sections of the performance curve—are scoring higher. If the exam is indeed easier due to the reduced syllabus, this ease should be reflected uniformly across all performance levels, resulting in a noticeable shift of the entire distribution towards higher scores. However, an examination of the data curve reveals that this is not the case. The lower end of the distribution shows little to no change in candidate performance, while there is a significant increase in marks among the top performers. Particularly, the number of students achieving very high scores has risen markedly compared to previous years.

Further, to claim that the exam was easier due to the reduction of the syllabus, the NTA in their affidavit (page 19) states that because the syllabus was reduced and the time remained the same, the question paper was much more “balanced”. However, despite the reduction in the syllabus, the number of questions students had to answer remained unchanged, and the time allotted was the same as in previous years. Hence, the NTA’s framing in the affidavit which suggests that the exam became easier due to more time, is misleading.

The NTA claims that “difficult and time-consuming chapters like P Block in chemistry and conceptual chapters in biology were deleted.” This statement reflects a strategic wordplay. They characterize chapters like p-Block, from which questions are often memory-based making them easier to attempt, as “difficult and time-consuming,” while characterizing unspecified chapters in biology as “conceptual,” implying that they were difficult as well. This renders the narrative that the exam was much easier due to syllabus reduction. Notably, the affidavit does not mention the physics syllabus reduction, wherein many of the subtopics that were removed still continues to be relevant for a comprehensive conceptual understanding of the chapters they were a part of. For instance, the fundamental concepts of average speed and average velocity are the subtopics “cut down” in the Class 11 Physics chapter introducing Kinematics. Moreover, many of the subtopics removed historically did not carry as much weightage in NEET. These considerations challenge the claim that the syllabus reduction made the exam significantly easier.

The NTA states that the syllabus reduction made the paper “balanced, ensuring accessibility for students from diverse backgrounds,” implying that the easier question paper enabled better performance from these students. This assertion raises significant concerns about the nature, intent, and attitude of NEET towards marginalized students in general. By claiming that reducing the syllabus and burden has helped marginalized students, the NTA implicitly admits that NEET has been unduly burdensome for these students in previous years.

Additionally, the NTA claims that the 2024 NEET-UG question paper was made easier to provide students from various geographical and socio-economic backgrounds an equal opportunity to succeed. They argue that this move was intended to discourage the growing dependency on coaching institutions. The NTA must substantiate its claim by providing information on the steps consciously taken to reduce the burden on marginalized students, and how this was reflected in the question paper. Further, it is important to analyse the data showing the proportion of students from marginalized backgrounds who secured admission into government colleges (ranks above 50,000) in 2024 compared to the previous years to assess the impact of these steps.

However, this claim is contradicted by NTA’s data showing that most of the top 60,000 rankers, who qualify for government medical seats, come from cities with extensive coaching facilities. In the report, IIT Madras argues that cities like Sikar, Kota, and Kottayam lead in the number of toppers within the top 1000 ranks due to “these places having many coaching classes”. The report inadvertently acts as an advertisement for coaching centres. Strikingly, when the NTA presents that the top cities producing the highest number of NEET rankers are those with many coaching classes, the NTA is essentially admitting that the ability to access and afford coaching classes is crucial for cracking NEET and achieving top ranks. This highlights a systemic bias within the NEET system that favours wealthier candidates and undermines the claim of improved accessibility for marginalized students.

The data analysis conducted by the NTA only examined whether students in these centres secured enough marks for “admission to medical colleges of primary importance,” which in our understanding refers to government colleges. This raises a doubt as to why NTA does not seem to deem worthy of consideration the possibility of students seeking to gain admission to private colleges engaging in malpractices. NEET initially promised to curb the exorbitant fees of private medical colleges, a promise yet to be fulfilled. The 50^th percentile cut-off to clear NEET ensures that individuals who can afford such high fees can surpass those with higher marks and still become doctors. While NEET was supposed to champion merit, it has failed to address the commercialization of medical education, which benefits the wealthy over those with higher scores. Now, even in their analysis of NEET malpractice, the NTA’s approach seems to exclude the wealthy from their scrutiny.

Instances of malpractices 

The case of malpractice in Godhra (page 34-36) highlights significant vulnerabilities in the NEET examination process. In Godhra, the deputy superintendent of examination conspired with students to manipulate OMR sheets. The deputy superintendent in this case was a school teacher at the examination centre who was responsible for sealing and returning the OMR sheets to the NTA and had the opportunity to fill in correct answers on blank OMR sheets left by the candidates (page 82-83). His involvement underscores how internal personnel can subvert security protocols despite the NTA’s measures to prevent malpractices.

The only reason the incident in Godhra came to light is because district officials discovered the plan and acted in advance to foil it. The Godhra case reveals a significant gap in the NTA’s oversight and security measures, suggesting that undetected malpractices could be happening elsewhere across the country without the knowledge of local authorities. This uncertainty further undermines the credibility of the NTA’s claims regarding the sanctity and integrity of the examination process.

The Godhra incident reveals systemic issues within the NTA’s protocols demonstrating that the perpetrators can be among the entrusted personnel. If malpractices occur at such systemic scales, then the current analysis by the NTA and IIT Madras, which is based on the assumption that malpractice can only occur through individual students cheating, will not be able to detect them. The analysis does not consider the issue of internal corruption within the system itself. There is an imperative need for mechanisms to be in place to protect the integrity of the exam from internal manipulation at administrative levels.

Moreover, the NTA’s affidavit mentions a paper leak in Patna, where individuals obtained the question paper before the exam. However, in the affidavit, it has not been explained how the question paper was leaked despite stringent security protocols, raising doubts about the effectiveness of NTA’s security measures. In the Patna case, it is crucial to note that the NTA still does not know how the question paper was leaked, as the matter is still under CBI investigation. Without understanding how this particular leak happened and determining whether similar leaks occurred elsewhere, the NTA cannot confidently claim that issues at these centres does not have “wide spread ramifications of impactable magnitude.” Without identifying and addressing the root cause of the leak, it is impossible to evaluate whether the exam process has suffered systemic failure or not.

In the last hearing, the Honourable Chief Justice of India asked whether the timing of the leaked question paper in Patna allowed enough time for it to spread across the country or if it was limited to a case of localized malpractice. In response, the NTA’s affidavit failed to address this crucial question. Evidence showed that candidates were tutored with the leaked question paper and provided with solutions, indicating that there was sufficient time to generate the answers, teach the students, and prepare them for the exam. However, the affidavit does not mention any of these instances or details. It also omits how the question paper was transferred to those generating the solutions, whether through electronic means or otherwise. This lack of information leaves significant gaps in understanding the extent and mechanics of the malpractice, further questioning the integrity of the examination process.

The way ahead

On page 74 of the affidavit, the NTA shames candidates who went to court for a re-examination, arguing that their scores are too low and insinuating that their motivation for calling for a reexam is to get another attempt. This begs the question who are the ‘right’ petitioners in the eyes of the NTA? Candidates who already scored high marks are unlikely to want the current exam scrapped, as they stand to gain from their existing scores. Only those who did not score highly would ask for a re-exam, as they are the ones most affected by any widespread malpractice. The NTA’s stance effectively silences any opposition or calls for a re-exam by dismissing petitioners based on their performance. This is a contrived way for the NTA to avoid accountability. The call for a re-NEET is about the NTA’s performance in terms of transparency and fairness as an examination conducting authority, and not about the petitioners’ performance. It is essential to focus on the integrity of the examination process rather than discrediting those who raise legitimate concerns.

Finally, students have been put through a lot already due to the stress caused by NEET this year and its failings. We request the NTA to not further exacerbate the misery of the students and their families by selectively choosing and presenting data and silencing student concerns. We demand that the NTA be transparent and make its data public for social audit so that we as a society can assist students in finding the truth and some long overdue relief.

The post If malpractice is widespread, across most exam centres, localised analysis will fail to detect anomalies: NTA’s flawed defence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To inquire into structural inadequacies, a high level committee had been appointed by the TN government to assess NEET’s impact. The report of this Committee is revealing. This article delves deep into the Justice AK Rajan Report of 2021 that was recently brought back into the public domain by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister (CM), MK Stalin.

Before that the murky background of the NEET Examination.

The result of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test 2024 (NEET-2024), an exam conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), on June 4 resulted in an uproar across the length and breadth of India. NEET is the national-level uniform test for admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses across the country. NEET-UG examination for this academic year was held by NTA on May 5, and more than 24 lakh people had appeared for it. This “competitive test” is held for those seeking admission to medical, dentistry, and AYUSH programs in government and private universities throughout India, for a little above 1 lakh MBBS seats in 700 plus medical institutions.

Since the results made public last week, news of there being corrupt malpractices with respect to the conduct of the exam, paper leaks and arbitrary grant of grace marks while processing of results have emerged. Students, citizenry and leaders of opposition parties have been protesting to raise concerns about the exam regarding the alleged malpractices. It is essential to note that the issue of grace marks was that the said grace marks were awarded arbitrarily by the NTA to some 1,500 candidates for “loss of time”, while at least 44 of the toppers getting grace marks for getting an answer wrong only because a version of a Class 12 NCERT textbook had an inaccuracy. (Details can be read here, here, here and here).

Amidst the said chaos and the uproar, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin shared the report of Justice A.K. Rajan Committee, a High-Level Committee headed by the retired judge of Madras High Court in 2021, which had recommended for the scraping of the NEET exam. In a post on X (previously Twitter), Stalin stated: “After assuming power [in 2021], we formed a High-Level Committee led by Justice A K Rajan to investigate the impact of the NEET- based admission procedure. The Committee’s report, which is based on comprehensive data analysis and input from students, parents, and the general public, has been published and sent to various state governments to highlight NEET’s anti-poor and anti-social justice tendencies.”

The post can be viewed here:

DMK was the first to foresee the hazards of #NEET and undertook a large-scale campaign against it.

After coming to power, we constituted a High-Level Committee headed by Justice A.K. Rajan to study the impact of NEET-based admission process. The Committee’s report, based on… pic.twitter.com/qHZK54syEE

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) June 9, 2024

It is pertinent to note that ever since NEET was made compulsory in 2017, the state of Tamil Nadu had opposed it. The state has maintained that NEET, which is conducted by the Union government’s Central Board of Secondary Education, goes against the interest of state board students. As per the post of CM Stalin, the said report committee is being put out by him in nine languages with the hope that this will help people understand the ills of NEET and why the same has been rejected by the state of Tamil Nadu.

Immediately after NEET’s imposition across the length and breadth of the country—never mind the fact that ‘Education’ as a subject remains in the Concurrent List of the Constitution where States have an equal stake and say — in February of 2023, the Tamil Nadu government had moved the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of NEET. The TN challenge emphasised the fact that the single-window examination for admissions to medical colleges across the country violates the principle of federalism, which is part of the basic structure of Constitution. The main argument raised by the state was that NEET takes away the autonomy of states to make decisions regarding education. The petition remains pending.

Justice AK Rajan Committee Report

Members of the AK Rajan Committee: Dr. G. R. Ravindranath (General Secretary, Doctor’s Association Social Equalities), Professor L. Jawahar Nesan (Former Vice-Chancellor), Dr. J. Radhakrishnan (Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department), Tmt. Kakala Usha (Principal Secretary, School Educatio), Thiru. C. Gopi Ravikumar (Secretary Law), Dr. P. Senthil Kumar (Principal Secretary/OSD, Health and Family Welfare), Dr. R. Narayana Babu (Director of Medical Education), Dr. P. Vasanthamani (Additional Director of Medical Education/Secretary, Selection Committee).

The 165-paged Rajan Committee report has found that after NEET was introduced in 2017-18, fewer students from rural areas, those studying in the Tamil medium, those from families with lower incomes, and those from Tamil Nadu state board schools, secured admission in medical colleges in the state. In the years since its implementation – after interviews with parents and students who applied and who emerge successful – the Committee found that the trends of applications and admissions in medical admission in Tamil Nadu started indicates that the NEET has caused an unprecedented havoc and setbacks for the students of varying social, economic and demographic denominations aspiring for medical studies. The same eventually prompted the Tamil Nadu Government to establish this committee in the state in 2021 to study the impact of the NEET on the admission prospects of students belonging to the state.

It is essential to note that based on the findings and suggestions of this report, in 2021 itself, the Tamil Nadu Assembly unanimously passed a Bill to ban NEET, only for governor RN Ravi to withhold consent for months before returning the Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration. In February 2022, the Assembly had readopted the Bill without any amendments. The Bill was forwarded by the Governor to President Draupadi Murmu in May of 2024 after Governor Ravi had refused to give his assent, despite it being constitutionally mandated that he gives his assent if a Bill is returned to him a second time without amendments and then pass it on to the President to sign. Notably, the Bill is still pending with the President. Following the example of Tamil Nadu, the state of Karnataka is also mulling over bringing in a similar law and scrapping NEET in the state in view of the recent malpractice allegations.

Contents of the report

The 165 pages report has been divided into a total of nine chapters, which dissects and looks at the issue of NEET from the perspective of academic, socio-economic and other demographic status and health services in Tamil Nadu as well as the constitutional provisions related to education in India. Additionally, the report further deals with the flaws that exist with the concept of conduction Common Entrance Examinations. Regarding NEET, the report explores the history of NEET, the academic merits and validity associated with it and the opinions of the stakeholders.

Based on this analysis, the report then puts out certain recommendations for the Tamil Nadu government, advising them that the state government must undertake immediate steps to eliminate NEET as a qualifying criterion for admission to medical programs by following the necessary legal and legislative procedures. As per the committee, the same can be done by the state government by asserting that the term ‘University education’ in Entry 25 List III is a general provision, while ‘Regulation of Universities’ in Entry II is a special provision, and Entry 32, an exclusive state subject, cannot be ignored.

It is crucial to highlight here that the committee’s report is based on extensive data analysis as well as over 86,000 inputs received by the Committee from students, parents and the public. In the said report, the committee has shed light on the negatives of the NEET exam model by observing that it promotes “coaching” rather than “learning” relying on data to drive home the point that those who undergo coaching or repeat the exam are at an advantageous position in clearing it. In addition to this, the report also provided data supporting the contention that those social groups who were the students of Tamil medium, rural background, government schools, and parental income less than Rs. 2.5 lakh and socially depressed and disadvantaged groups like MBC, SC, and ST were highly affected by the introduction of NEET.

The report also refers to the drastic decrease in the number of Tamil-medium students getting selected for MBBS after NEET was introduced.

As per the data released by the committee, it is shown that the number of Tamil-medium students getting into government and private medical colleges has taken a huge hit after NEET came into being in the state in 2017. As provided in the report, 456 students from the Tamil medium got into MBBS in 2010-2011 when the admission was based on marks scored in plus-two exams.

Even in the year 2016, the number of Tamil-medium students who had secured admission to medical colleges 2016, a year before NEET, was 537. However, it witnessed a steep fall in 2017 when just 56 students from the Tamil-medium secured admission. Since 2017, the number of Tamil-medium students being selected to medical colleges remained low only, with only 119 Tamil-medium students got into medical colleges in 2018, followed by 71 in 2019. The report also provides that the number of Tamil-medium students securing a seat in 2020 rose only because a 7.5 per cent quota for government school students who clear NEET in medical admissions by the then AIADMK government.

A percentage wise comparison of the number of students from Tamil-medium who got into medical colleges has also been provided in the report, which showed the percentage coming down to 1.6 per cent in 2017 from 19.79 per cent in 2010. This downward trend was in contrast with the number of students from English-medium who secured admission in medical colleges, which went up to 98.41 per cent in 2017 from 80.2 per cent in 2010.

On the issue of impact of annual family income to those who were able to get admission in allotted colleges or self-financed colleges, the report showed that the students‟ Parental Income < 2.5 Lakhs diminished reasonably as opposed to those belonging to the group of > 2.5 Lakhs whose share has increased after the NEET. As per the data provided in the tables, it can be clearly seen that there existed a trend favouring the group of more than 2.5 Lakhs compared to the ones whose family income was less than 2.5 lakhs. Notably, even though there was a similar trend before and after the NEET, but the gap between their shares has widened in the post-NEET compared to the pre-NEET.

The report also provided the admission data of the students in terms of their geographical location. The table of the data showed the percentage distribution of the students, from rural and urban setup, who have secured admissions in both the Government and Self-Financing colleges. From the data provide, the panel found a 12 per cent (from 61.45 per cent to 49.91 per cent) drop in the share of rural students from pre-NEET to post-NEET. On the other hand, the urban share rose from the pre-NEET average of 46.33% to 52.86% in 2020-21 in the post-NEET period. It indicates, in both categories, compared to the pre-NEET period, the rural segment has lost its share of admission in the post-NEET that it once maximally enjoyed in the pre-NEET.

The report also dissects the data of the students in terms of their becoming First Generation Graduate (FGG) or being from Non-First Generation Graduate (Non-FGG) family. As per the data provided in the report, based on the rate of applications, the FGG’s application was reduced in the post-NEET as opposed to increased rate of applications by the Non-FGG. The data shows that in both Government and Self-Financed Colleges, the Non-FGG students secured admissions far greater than the FGG students in the post-NEET compared to the pre-NEET period. Also, within the same medium categories, the trend shows a drastic change in admissions between the pre-NEET and post-NEET periods. For instance, as is evident from the data, the overall percentage share of the FGG has reduced from 24.94% in 2016-17 to 14.46% in 2020-21 in the Government lot, while that of the Non-FGG rose to 85.54% in 2020-21 from 75.06% in 2016-17.

The data of the report indicates that in both government allotted as well as self-financed college categories, compared to the pre-NEET period, the FGG segment was the worst affected segment which lost almost 45% of its share that it enjoyed in pre-NEET to the non-FGG group in the post-NEET.

On the concern of mushrooming of coaching centres that charge exorbitant fees, the report provides that competitive exams revolve around the coaching class ecosystem, which, thus have grown around JEE and NEET in India. In reference to Tamil Nadu, the report states that branches of every key coaching institute opening shop in major cities and affluent rural areas was the result of the compulsory implementation of NEET in 2016. Providing the data on the percentage of students that took training prior to attempting the NEET exam, the report highlighted that of the students who secured admission in the year 2019-20, 99% students had received prior training before the NEET.

Connecting the issue of geographical location and income of the family with accessibility to coaching, the report highlights that rural students studying in Government Schools coming from economically weaker section find it difficult in joining the Coaching centres in the city where the fees are high and the boarding facilities are also not affordable to stay in the City to attend the coaching classes for NEET examination. Especially, poor students from rural backgrounds and those who have studied in the vernacular medium face great disadvantage, because of the trespassing coachers encroaching education. Comparatively students studying in State Board/CBSE/ICSE syllabus in the city have easy access to join coaching centres in the city where transportation facilities are available compared to the rural areas.

Gist of the findings of the report:

Following findings can be deduced from the report:

• While English-medium students had more seats even before NEET, their share increased after NEET, while Tamil-medium students’ proportion decreased.
• Between 2010-11 and 2016-17, students from rural regions received 61.5% of available places in government medical institutions. Post the introduction of NEET, the percentage of students from the rural back securing admission in medical dropped. In contrast, the proportion of students from metropolitan regions in government medical institutions increased from an average of 38.55% in the pre-NEET years to 50.09% in 2020-21.
• The report stated that NEET has been successful mainly for the repeaters (71 per cent in 2021) and those students who have gone through coaching while opining that Tamil Nadu’s robust health care system will go back to “pre-independence era“ if NEET continues as the pattern of selection in MBBS admission.
• According to the Rajan Committee, the proportion of students from higher-income households grew after NEET, while that of students from lower-income families fell. Students with parents earning less than Rs 2.5 lakh per year received an average of 41% of admissions prior to NEET, however this ratio dropped to 36% in the post-NEET years. For pupils whose parents earned more than Rs 2.5 lakh per year, these figures were 58% and 62% on average in the pre-NEET and post-NEET eras, respectively.
• According to the Committee, CBSE students gained an advantage over Tamil Nadu state board students following the NEET. The percentage of candidates from state board schools decreased from nearly 95% on average in the pre-NEET years to 64.27% in 2020-21, while applications from CBSE schools surged from an average of 3.17% pre-NEET to 32.26% in 2020-21.
• The study said that “the argument that the NEET mark, as opposed to HSC (higher secondary certificate of the state board) mark tests the standard of the student and signifies merit is a baseless argument”. It was noticed that prior to NEET, the average HSC score of students admitted to MBBS courses was 98.16%, compared to 89.05% after NEET. The committee has also specified in the report that while a comparison between the HSc and the NEET scores is like comparing orange with apple, however, the Committee has to do so in response to the arguments of the critics of HSc who argue that NEET is the best assessor of students‟ standard and abilities, because of its assessment and syllabus superiority.
• Regarding the influence of coaching institutes on admissions, the research said that 99% of students who obtained admissions in 2019-20 had training prior to NEET. The report also revealed that NEET coaching centres had become a Rs 5,750 crore industry in the state.

As provided in the report, Ranjan committee observes that “The aftermath effect of the NEET has already embarked with signs of changing profile of the Doctors between the pre-NEET and post-NEET period, creating a generation of doctors and teaching faculties from mainly the privileged communities- the affluent, the creamy, the urban genre who are well away from the grass root realities of the diverse social structure – the implication of which will be palpable in the society in years to come if not intervened at the 111 earliest. While the reasons and interventions may be multi-dimensional including academic reforms and bottom- up socio economic uplift, if the pre and post NEET scenario is considered, the aftermath effect has aggravated the divide and worsened the medical and healthcare sector in all its tributaries; like medical education, medical profession, and public healthcare system and service.”

Recommendations and conclusion of the report:

The report in its entirety highlights the need to do away with NEET. The recommendations are grounded in substantial data and aim to ensure justice, protect vulnerable communities and foster a more holistic and fairer educational environment.

1. Elimination of NEET

NEET has been criticized for creating an uneven playing field. The first and foremost recommendation is that state government should take immediate steps to eliminate NEET from being used in admissions to medical programs at all levels.

The state can do this in two ways.

First, the state government can argue that “University education” under Entry 25 List III is seen as a general provision, while “Regulation of Universities” under Entry 32 is viewed as a special provision. Entry 32 is an exclusive state subject, which means that Article 254, which deals with conflicts between state and central laws, cannot override Act 3/2007 in relation to Entry 32. Consequently, admissions to colleges affiliated with the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University should be governed by Act 3 of 2007, excluding the application of Section 14 of the NMC Act.

Second, the committee suggests that the State Government may pass a new Act, similar to Act 3/2007, to eliminate NEET at all levels of medical education. This Act, then must receive the President’s assent to ensure its validity.

2. Sole Admission Criteria Based on HSc Scores

The committee proposes that Higher Secondary (HSc) scores should become the sole criteria for admission to first-degree medical programs. To ensure fairness among students from different educational boards, normalization of scores should be implemented.

3. Addressing Socio-Economic Adversities

The committee calls for the identification of socio-economic and other demographic adversities that contribute to poor performance among disadvantaged students in their HSc examinations. Based on the degree of these adversities, a framework of “Adversity Score” should be developed to re-profile students’ scores.

4. Reforming School Education

The committee emphasizes the need to reform school education up to the HSc level. The focus should be on fostering learning rather than coaching. The entire educational process, from curriculum development to teaching methods and assessment, should be oriented towards equipping students with subject knowledge and higher-order skills such as reasoning, decision-making, and social disposition.

5. Bringing Deemed Universities Under State Purview

The final recommendation suggested by the committee is that an Act should be passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly to bring all deemed universities in the state under its jurisdiction, similar to Act 3/2007. This Act must also receive the President’s assent.

In conclusion

Justice Thiru A. K. Rajan through this report presents a critical re-evaluation of the current NEET-based medical admission process in India. The report concludes with stating that persisting with NEET will jeopardize the state’s healthcare system by potentially creating a doctor shortage in crucial Primary Health Centres and will jeopardize the availability of specialists in government hospitals. Furthermore, it is stated that NEET disproportionately disadvantages students from underprivileged backgrounds, both rural and urban, hindering their aspirations to become doctors. This trend, if left unchecked, risks a regression to a pre-independence healthcare scenario reliant on minimally trained personnel. Such a decline would significantly erode Tamil Nadu’s standing as a state with an advanced medical and healthcare system.

To avert this detrimental trajectory, the report suggests the state government to act swiftly to abolish NEET as a medical admission requirement. Implementing the recommendations outlined in the report, encompassing legislative actions and targeted educational reforms, will pave the way for a more equitable and effective system to nurture future medical professionals. These necessary steps not only safeguard the state’s healthcare infrastructure but also promote social justice by offering equal access to medical education for all students, irrespective of their socioeconomic background.

The complete report can be viewed here:

Related:

NEET 2024 Row: Supreme Court cancels grace marks, orders re-test for affected students

Students, organisations protest as allegations against NEET examinations pile up

Scrutinising the procedure for awarding compensatory marks in NEET 2024

SC asks NTA to ensure that even ‘0.001% negligence’ is investigated, while states of Bihar & Gujarat remain the epicentre of the NEET UG 2024 scandal

The post Abolish ‘discriminatory and imbalanced’ NEET exam: Justice A.K. Rajan Committee 2021 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The UGC -NET and the NEET exam (besides several others, used to  be conducted by the CBSE until 2018, which was (and is) a National Board of Education in India for public and private schools, controlled and managed by the Union Government of India.

Question 1: If an autonomous testing agency was required at all, why was the Societies Registration Act a route chosen by the government of India? Why was an Act of Parliament (such as was done to set up UGC or AICTE) not passed, or an autonomous Council created under the Ministry of Education, like the CBSE? Was this route chosen to evade the financial scrutiny and accountability that arises from being a government institution, by virtue of being subject to the comptroller and auditor general (CAG)?

Question 2: The 95 year old CBSE had been conducting several national examinations since the 1970s and the UGC-NET since 2014. Why was the CBSE’s examination wing not expanded to take over the national testing mechanism? The CBSE has well developed protocols for confidentiality and secrecy, and even how to manage finances

Please see:

Why were these not laid down as essential for the NTA to follow? Why in setting up the NTA were there no enforceable guidelines or demands for accountability from the government about paper leaks, selection of experts as paper setters, modalities about conducting the exam, the fees that it can charge, besides accountability for breaches, wrong answer keys, delays, and the like?

Question 3: How can a SOCIETY be one whose memorandum of association is to be found nowhere? It’s because no one can join it, as only the government can decide who its members are, even as it bullies and threatens universities into buying into its ridiculous exam. As per this notification, the NTA is a body whose members are handpicked by the government but whose misconduct and failures, the government takes no responsibility for!  It’s a SOCIETY with no General Body either, and its composition is completely lopsided representation of universities. There are over a thousand universities in India and less than a hundred institutes, but the latter far outstrip the former in terms clout in the body.

The answers to these three questions are quite trivial. The fact is that the NTA is a scam no different from the Electoral Bonds, the exit polls scam, or PMCARES scams. Just as in these other malpractices, the scheme is simple—USE THE BRUTE FORCE OF THE STATE TO CREATE A SCHEME FOR RUTHLESS EXTORTION, IN WHICH A FEW PROFIT! #scrapNTA

From the Facebook profile of Ayesha Kidwai, a Professor of Linguistics at the Centre for Linguistics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, and a translator and activist.

The post NTA Ki Chronology Samjhiye! Then attempt to answer my three non-MCQ questions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Even if there is 0.001% negligence on the part of anyone, it should be thoroughly dealt with. All these matters ought not to be treated as adversarial litigation,” the Bench said, as per Livelaw.

The present petition has been tagged with other similar petitions that had been filed in the Supreme Court, where allegations of malpractice and paper leaks had been made.  It is essential to note that.

Background of the controversy

On June 4, 2024, the NTA released the NEET 2024 results, catching students and parents off guard due to the results being announced ten days ahead of the anticipated date. This early release coincided with the national focus on the general election results, which added to the public’s astonishment. The declaration that 67 candidates had secured a perfect score of 720/720 raised immediate concerns, as achieving such scores is exceptionally difficult given NEET’s negative marking system.

Further suspicions were fuelled by reports that many of the top scorers had consecutive roll numbers, implying they might have taken the exam at the same centre. This raised allegations of collusion and possible exam centre malpractice. The situation was further complicated by reports of candidates scoring 718/720 and 719/720—scores that are impossible under NEET’s marking scheme, sparking confusion and suspicion among stakeholders.

Legal headway made till now 

On the last day of hearing, June 13, the said matter had been brought before the Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court of India.

The Court had reviewed the pleas demanding the cancellation of NEET-UG 2024 results and objections to the awarding of grace marks. One petition was filed by Physics Wallah CEO Alakh Pandey, who argued that the NTA’s decision to award grace marks was arbitrary, supported by representations from about 20,000 students. Another petition by SIO members, Abdullah Mohammed Faiz and Dr. Shaik Roshan Mohiddin sought a recall of the NEET-UG 2024 results over alleged paper leaks and malpractices, with the court issuing a notice on this matter. It is essential to note that after allegations were raised against the grant of grace marks, the NTA and the Union Education Ministry had formed a four-member committee to review the results of the candidates awarded grace marks to compensate for the loss of time.

On the issue of grace marks: Advocate Kanu Agarwal, representing the Union Government, had stated that the panel reviewing the NEET-UG issue was of the view that the award of compensatory marks to 1563 students on the grounds of loss of time resulted in a “skewed situation” because the grace marks had to be limited only to the un-attempted questions. After examining all aspects, the committee concluded that it would be appropriate to recommend the cancellation of the scorecards of the 1563 students.

The court had scrutinised the NTA recommendations and found inconsistencies regarding the re-test clauses. Justice Mehta had emphasized the need to re-draft the clauses, noting, “You can’t declare the result of all 1563 candidates cancelled.”

The Supreme Court directed that only candidates genuinely affected by the reduced exam time should be eligible for the re-test, scheduled for June 23, 2024, with results to be declared by June 30 to avoid disrupting the counselling process starting on July 6. The Supreme Court’s order had stated that the petitioners raised concerns about the normalisation formula and the award of grace marks to 1563 candidates. Those who opt out of the re-exam will have their actual scores considered without compensatory marks. The decision to cancel the grace marks awarded to 1563 students was communicated by the Centre to the Supreme Court, with these students informed of their actual scores.

On halting the counselling process: The Supreme Court had clarified that the ongoing counselling process, which is scheduled to take place on July 6, would not be halted. Justice Nath had stated, “Counselling will go on, and we will not stop it. If the exam goes, then everything goes in totality, so nothing to fear.”

The order of the Supreme Court can be read here:

Arguments and observations made in the ongoing hearing

During the hearing on January 18, the vacation bench had clarified to Advocate Kanu Agarwal and Vardhaman Kaushik, representing the Union Government and the NTA respectively that even 0.001% negligence on the part of anyone needs to be thoroughly investigated. Justice Bhatti also highlighted that an investigation is important not only to ensure that the labour put in by students preparing for the exams but also because any candidate who becomes a doctor after playing fraud in the exam is more dangerous to the society.

“Imagine a situation where a person who has played fraud on the system, has become a doctor, he is more deleterious towards society….we all know the labour the children undergo especially for preparing for these exams.” Justice Bhatti remarked, as per LiveLaw.

Justice Bhatti also expressed that the NTA should act proactively and must admit if there is any mistake. This will re-instil the confidence of the public in the NEET examinations.

“Your stance (the NTA and Union) ought not to change the moment you enter the court, representing the Agency which is responsible for conducting the examination. You must stand firm- if there is a mistake, yes there is a mistake, this is the action we will take- at least that inspires confidence in your performance….if someone keeps just a table in front of him, find out the performance of most of the candidates, one can easily understand where it has gone wrong, how many cell phones were used…clearly we react, but in vacation we react slowly,” the Bench stated.

The case will now be heard on July 8 with the other matters. The Union Government as well as the NTA has been required to submit their response within two weeks.

The order of the Supreme Court can be read here:

Police investigations in Bihar, Gujarat

The National Eligibility Entrance Test of 2024, the largest medical admission test in India, has been in the headlines since the past few weeks. The numerous arrests, inquiries, judicial interventions, scams, protests and calls for justice in the wake of the purported paper leak have raised many fingers at the sanctity of this test as well as the negligence of the NTA. As more and more scandals related to NEET unfold, shocking and significant details have emerged from the state of Bihar and Gujarat.

Bihar:

It was from the state of Bihar that the reports of a paper leak had started surfacing. As provided by multiple media report, five minutes into the exam, the Patna police got a tip-off about a car belonging to an organised gang. The car had earlier taken 35 examinees to a playschool in Patna and leaked the paper.

As per the report of The Free Press Journal, an FIR had been registered at the Shastrinagar police station and police had recovered a scanned copy of the leaked paper sent to a young man in Danapur. The investigation by Patna police had also resulted in multiple arrests and unravelling of malpractices. The police also arrested four fake candidates in Purnia and one in Hajipur who had attempted to sit the exam on behalf of others.

As per reports, a total of 13 people belonging to Bihar have been arrested in connection with the alleged NEET-UG 2024 paper leak case. The Bihar Police have established the involvement of 35 students, 13 of whom have already come under their investigation while investigators are yet to identify the remaining 22.

According to sources, it is suspected that nine aspirants, along with four other examinees from Bihar, received the exam’s question paper and answers in a ‘safe house’ near Patna a day before it was conducted on May 5. Notably, they have already been arrested by the Economic Offences Unit (EOU).

During interrogation, the candidates had disclosed that their parents had paid more than Rs 30 lakh for every candidate to those who were facilitated question papers ahead of the exam. The EOU of Bihar Police had also recovered six post-dated cheques which were suspected to have been issued in favour of the mafia.

Gujarat:

On June 15, Gujarat Police arrested five persons, including the head of a coaching centre, in connection with alleged cheating in the medical examination in a centre in Godhra. As per the police complaint lodged in Godhra, around a dozen students, their parents and a Vadodara-based coaching centre run by a group of teachers were found to be involved in the alleged scam. The five arrested included the principal and teacher of a school in Godhra town in Gujarat’s Panchmahal district. The names of those arrested are:

1. Parshuram Roy, owner of the Roy Overseas Coaching Institute in Vadodara,
2. Vibhor Anand, an education consultant who got students admitted to Roy’s Institute,
3. Purshottam Sharma, the principal of Jai Jalaram School which was a NEET exam centre,
4. Tushar Bhatt, the deputy superintendent at the NEET centre who was a physics teacher at the school and
5. Arif Vora who worked with Bhatt

These five have been accused of trying to help 27 candidates clear the NEET-UG for a sum of ₹ 10 lakh each. As per the report of The Free Press Journal, some students had even paid over Rs 2 crore to the accused for getting their children admitted overseas.

As per Indian express, out of 27 students who had either paid in advance or agreed to pay money to Mr Roy and others, only three were able to clear the exam. Notably, the police informed the court that out of the 27 students who chose Godhra as their exam centre, 16 students hailed from Odisha, Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

It is essential to note that the FIR against this “racket” had been filed on May 9, after the district collector received a tip-off that some persons were involved in malpractice at the Godhra School designated as a centre for NEET-UG, held on May 5. As per the details that have emerged, students had been asked to opt for the Godhra centre so that the accused could then help the candidates by filling the answers to the questions left blank. As per The Print, a nexus between a coaching institute and staff at the exam centre where the NEET was conducted is emerging. The police are now, with the help of the NTA, trying to identify all the students who benefited from this organised cheating racket.

Uproar and protest by opposition over NEET continue

On June 19, the Indian National Congress (INC) party announced a nationwide protest on June 21, 2024 against the alleged NEET Scam. The said decision came after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had bemoaned the silence of PM Modi over the scam and the allegations being raised against the conduct of the NTA.

On June 18, Gandhi had taken to X (formerly Twitter) and provided “As always, Narendra Modi is maintaining silence on the issue of playing with the future of more than 24 lakh students in the NEET exam. The arrests in Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana clearly indicate that there is systematic organised corruption in the examination and these BJP ruled states have become the epicentre of paper leaks. In our judicial document, we had guaranteed to secure the future of the youth by making a strict law against paper leaks.”

NEET परीक्षा में 24 लाख से अधिक छात्रों के भविष्य के साथ हुए खिलवाड़ पर भी नरेंद्र मोदी हमेशा की तरह मौन धारण किए हुए हैं।

बिहार, गुजरात और हरियाणा में हुई गिरफ्तारियों से साफ है कि परीक्षा में योजनाबद्ध तरीके से संगठित भ्रष्टाचार हुआ है और ये भाजपा शासित राज्य पेपर लीक का…

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) June 18, 2024

Reacting to the arrests made in Bihar, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge had also claimed that the Modi government has started “covering up the NEET scam” through Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and the NTA.

“If the paper was not leaked in NEET then — why were 13 accused arrested in Bihar due to paper leak? Did the Economic Offences Unit (EOU) of Patna police not expose the payment of Rs 30 lakh-Rs 50 lakh to the education mafia and organised gangs involved in the racket in exchange for papers?” he said in a post on X.

मोदी सरकार ने शिक्षा मंत्री व NTA के द्वारा NEET घोटाले की लीपापोती चालू कर दी है।

अगर NEET में पेपर लीक नहीं हुआ तो —

1. बिहार में 13 आरोपियों को पेपर लीक के चलते गिरफ़्तार क्यों किया गया?

क्या रैकेट में शामिल शिक्षा माफिया व संगठित गिरोह को पेपर के बदले ₹30-₹50 लाख तक… pic.twitter.com/r234FgUZes

— Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) June 14, 2024

Karnataka Deputy CM DK Shivakumar also attacked the union government and stated “The Karnataka government’s stand is that we are opposing it. It’s a huge scandal. I would like to congratulate Dharmendra Pradhan on his statement…It’s unfair to have a re-exam for a few students. It must be done for everyone.”

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders have been continuously protesting against the Union government and demanding an investigation on the NEET UG. The political party has been questioning the ruling party on alleged NEET paper leak since the beginning, and have amped up their protest since the hearing of the case in the Supreme Court.

NEET Exam में घोटाले के ख़िलाफ़ आज देशभर में AAP का हल्ला बोल pic.twitter.com/hwd64Gauzb

— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) June 19, 2024

आज छात्र और उनके माता-पिता सड़कों पर हैं। वह मांग कर रहे हैं कि NEET के Exam को दोबारा कराया जाए, लेकिन सरकार उनकी बात नहीं सुन रही है। वह लीपापोती में लगी हुई है।

देश के शिक्षा मंत्री NEET घोटाले को मानने की तैयार नहीं हैं। वह सोच रहे हैं कि लोग कितने दिन तक आवाज़ उठायेंगे,… pic.twitter.com/clhdZbGExl

— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) June 18, 2024

At a protest held at Jantar Matar, AAP leaders had stated that “NTA has betrayed the central government and the children of the country. Children’s dreams and future have been betrayed. Cases of paper leak also came to light in Bihar and Gujarat, but the central government remained silent. They kept trying to hide this fraud. The Central Government should conduct an independent investigation in this matter and it should be under the supervision of the Supreme Court. This is a question of the future of millions of children of 10th, 11th and 12th and AAP will strongly raise the voice of these children.”

#WATCH | Delhi | Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) holds protest against Union Government over NEET exam result issue, at Jantar Mantar pic.twitter.com/MbviAYlbsh

— ANI (@ANI) June 18, 2024

Related:

NEET 2024 Row: Supreme Court cancels grace marks, orders re-test for affected students

Scrutinising the procedure for awarding compensatory marks in NEET 2024

Students, organisations protest as allegations against NEET examinations pile up

NEET: An Exam only for Elites

The post SC asks NTA to ensure that even ‘0.001% negligence’ is investigated, while states of Bihar & Gujarat remain the epicentre of the NEET UG 2024 scandal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With 67 candidates reportedly securing All India Rank (AIR) 1 with perfect scores of 720/720, alongside the improbable scores of 718/720 and 719/720, concerns about cut-off levels and potential malpractice have emerged.

This piece delves into the NEET 2024 controversy, analysing the background, protests, and subsequent Supreme Court intervention, highlighting the critical issues at play.

Background of the Controversy

On June 4, 2024, the NTA released the NEET 2024 results, catching students and parents off guard due to the results being announced ten days ahead of the anticipated date. This early release coincided with the national focus on the general election results, which added to the public’s astonishment. The declaration that 67 candidates had secured a perfect score of 720/720 raised immediate concerns, as achieving such scores is exceptionally difficult given NEET’s negative marking system.

Further suspicions were fuelled by reports that many of the top scorers had consecutive roll numbers, implying they might have taken the exam at the same centre. This raised allegations of collusion and possible exam centre malpractice. The situation was further complicated by reports of candidates scoring 718/720 and 719/720—scores that are impossible under NEET’s marking scheme, sparking confusion and suspicion among stakeholders.

NTA’s Response and Normalization Formula

In response to the uproar on social media, the NTA issued a clarification on X (formerly Twitter), attributing the unusual scores to a normalization formula approved by the Supreme Court. This formula was ostensibly implemented to address time loss issues during the May 5, 2024, exam. However, many remained unconvinced, questioning the normalization process and the integrity of the results.

pic.twitter.com/woK8QhtoWo

— National Testing Agency (@NTA_Exams) June 4, 2024

A subsequent NTA press release on June 6 explained that the increase in the number of high scorers was due to a 14% rise in candidates from 2023 to 2024, as well as revisions in the answer key and compensatory marks. Yet, this explanation did not fully account for the significant increase in perfect scores, leaving many questions unanswered.

Regarding queries of candidates on NEET (UG) 2024 Result declared on 04 June 2024 pic.twitter.com/F3Hu7aMtwb

— National Testing Agency (@NTA_Exams) June 6, 2024

Protests and Social Media Outcry

The release of NEET 2024 results triggered significant protests across India. Student organizations and opposition youth wings mobilized, with protests occurring in cities like Delhi, Kanpur, and Bhopal.

Delhi protests (June 9, 2024)

On the day of the new NDA government’s oath-taking ceremony, Delhi witnessed significant protests. Student associations like AISA, NSUI, and Youth Congress workers joined forces to demonstrate, claiming coaching centers were bribing officials to favor certain students.

Kanpur and Bhopal protests (June 7-8, 2024)

Hundreds of students protested in Kanpur and Bhopal, demanding redressal and transparency. The widespread nature of these protests underscored the deep discontent and mistrust among students and their families.

Legal action and Supreme Court intervention

In response to the controversy, multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the cancellation of NEET 2024 and the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged fraud. The Supreme Court did not stay the NEET results but issued notices to the NTA.

Comparison with CLAT 2018

To understand the complexity of the NEET 2024 situation, a comparison with the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 is instructive. Both exams faced issues related to time loss and score normalization, but the approaches and contexts differed significantly.

CLAT 2018 was conducted online, allowing precise tracking of technical issues and time loss for each candidate. This precise data enabled accurate adjustments to scores based on a detailed normalization formula. In contrast, NEET 2024 was conducted offline, making accurate determination of time loss more challenging. The reliance on CCTV footage for assessing time lost introduces uncertainty, unlike the precise logs available in an online setting.

For CLAT 2018, the Supreme Court set up a grievance redressal committee to review complaints and created an email account for candidates to submit grievances, ensuring thorough examination and transparency. Conversely, NEET 2024 lacked such a comprehensive grievance redressal mechanism. The NTA mentioned compensating 1563 candidates, but the process lacked transparency and did not provide an open forum for all candidates to report issues. In the NEET 2024, the court held that, only the people who have come to the court with the complaints can take the re-exam and no grievance redressal mechanism is put in place.

Kindly embed this tweet here-

Sai Deepak: 1563 are the students who approached court for the time not being granted.. what about others who did not come to court?

SC: Are they here ? Are you holding their brief ? do not unnecessarily expand the scope#SupremeCourt #NEET #NEET_परीक्षा #NeetUG24Controversy…

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) June 13, 2024

SC: in how many centres did students suffered loss of time ?

NTA: 6 centres

SC: how many candidates ?

NTA: 1563

SC: then all covered.

J Sai Deepak: Then please keep it open for the ones who suffered loss of time but did not approach court

SC: that means keep sitting on…

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) June 13, 2024

The normalisation formula used in CLAT 2018 calculated additional questions a candidate would have attempted without time loss based on their answering efficiency. This method, however, is inappropriate for NEET 2024, given the offline nature of the exam and the lack of precise data on time lost. The discrepancies in the scores, such as 718 and 719, which are not possible under NEET’s marking scheme, demand clear explanation and public scrutiny.

The court has therefore, held that the grace marks will be cancelled, the students who have received grace marks can then sit for a re- examination.

Kindly embed this tweet here-

J Nath: Subsequent committee has made recommendations, which have been placed today before us by Mr Kanu Agarwal. It has been suggested that score cards of affected 1563 candidates will stand cancelled and withdrawn#SupremeCourt #NEET_परीक्षा #NEETUG

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 13, 2024

J Nath: These candidates will be informed their actual scores, without compensatory marks. Re-exam will be conducted for the affected 1563 candidates. Results of those who don’t wish to re-appear will be declared based on actual marks#SupremeCourt #NEET_परीक्षा #NEETUG

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 13, 2024

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed a significant controversy surrounding the NEET-UG 2024 examination. The issue in question involved the awarding of grace marks to over 1500 candidates due to reduced exam time. This decision was met with multiple petitions challenging the conduct and results of the exam, raising concerns about fairness and transparency.

Hearing Details and Arguments

The matter was brought before a Vacation Bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The court reviewed several pleas, including demands for the cancellation of NEET-UG 2024 results and objections to the awarding of grace marks. Advocate Kanu Aggarwal, representing the respondents, informed the court of a decision to address the students’ concerns. A committee recommended cancelling the scorecards of 1563 candidates affected by reduced exam time and conducting a re-test for them. Advocate J Sai Deepak, representing one of the petitioners, argued against the arbitrary award of grace marks, stressing that some candidates did not receive the full exam duration, which led to compensatory marks being awarded.

Court’s observations and orders

The Supreme Court clarified that the ongoing counselling process would not be halted. Justice Nath stated, “Counselling will go on, and we will not stop it. If the exam goes, then everything goes in totality, so nothing to fear.” The court scrutinised the National Testing Agency (NTA) recommendations and found inconsistencies regarding the re-test clauses. Justice Mehta emphasized the need to re-draft the clauses, noting, “You can’t declare the result of all 1563 candidates canceled.”

Advocate J Sai Deepak referenced a 2018 Supreme Court judgment in a CLAT matter to argue his case, but the bench clarified that the CLAT judgment did not apply here. Justice Nath remarked, “The CLAT judgment is not being applied here. The circumstances and specifics differ, so we must address this case on its own merits.” The Supreme Court directed that only candidates genuinely affected by the reduced exam time should be eligible for the re-test, scheduled for June 23, 2024, with results to be declared by June 30 to avoid disrupting the counselling process starting on July 6.

Final Verdict and Broader Context

The Supreme Court’s order stated that the petitioner raised concerns about the normalisation formula and the award of grace marks to 1563 candidates. The NTA, after reconsideration, recommended cancelling the scorecards of these candidates and conducting re-exams. Those who opt out of the re-exam will have their actual scores considered without compensatory marks. The decision to cancel the grace marks awarded to 1563 students was communicated by the Centre to the Supreme Court, with these students informed of their actual scores. Advocate Kanu Aggarwal, representing the Union Government, conveyed that the panel’s decision was made to “allay the fears of the students” and address the skewed situation resulting from the grace marks.

Additional Petitions and Ongoing Issues

The court dealt with three primary petitions challenging the NEET-UG 2024 results due to irregularities and the contentious award of grace marks. One notable petition was filed by Physics Wallah CEO Alakh Pandey, who argued that the NTA’s decision to award grace marks was arbitrary, supported by representations from about 20,000 students. Another petition by SIO members, Abdullah Mohammed Faiz and Dr. Shaik Roshan Mohiddin sought a recall of the NEET-UG 2024 results over alleged paper leaks and malpractices, with the court issuing a notice on this matter.

The Supreme Court disposed of the petition challenging the grace marks while keeping pending other grievances. The NTA and the Union Education Ministry had earlier formed a four-member committee to review the results of the candidates awarded grace marks to compensate for the loss of time.

Need for a Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow re-examinations for the 1563 candidates affected by reduced exam time is a step towards addressing the immediate concerns of fairness and transparency. However, the broader issue of a lack of a comprehensive grievance redressal mechanism remains unaddressed. This controversy highlights the urgent need for the National Testing Agency (NTA) to establish a robust and transparent grievance redressal process to ensure that all students have a fair opportunity to report issues and seek redress.

The other students, who have not approached the court may not have the means to and hence the court must follow the precedent laid down in CLAT 2018, where a grievance redressal mechanism was established in order to give every student a chance to voice their concern.

Supreme Court order can be read here:

Related:

Scrutinising the procedure for awarding compensatory marks in NEET 2024

Students, organisations protest as allegations against NEET examinations pile up

NEET: An Exam only for Elites

Now, Muslim girl students complain of being forced to remove burqa and hijab before NEET exam

Two pre-med students die by suicide in Rajasthan: NEET

The post NEET 2024 Row: Supreme Court cancels grace marks, orders re-test for affected students appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Soon the news of 67 candidates securing AIR 1 with a perfect score of 720/720 and the high mark inflation this year caused worry to the students as this meant that the cut-offs would be sky high. Moreover, the claim that a few students were found to have scored 718/720 and 719/720 (which are impossible to get in NEET, as the marking scheme only awards +4 for right answer, -1 for the wrong answer and 0 if the question is not attended) causing confusion and suspicion among students. Further, the posts which circulated showing a few students with roll numbers close by to one another having a perfect score of 720/720, implying that they all possibly attended the exam from the same centre, only made matters worse.

Apprehensive students and parents took to social media to voice their concerns over the validity of the results. This prompted the NTA to issue a clarification on X (formerly Twitter). In their statement, the NTA explained that they had received few representations and court cases from candidates who raised concerns over the loss of time during the examination conducted on May 5, 2024. To address these issues, the NTA implemented a normalisation formula, devised and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment dated June 13, 2018. Addition of marks by this formula resulted in the unexpected scores of 718 and 719. However, this explanation did not satisfy many, who continued to question the integrity of the results and the rationale behind the normalization process. The incident has sparked a broader conversation about the transparency and reliability of high-stakes examinations in India.

In response to this, the NTA released yet another clarification through a press release on June 6. In that, the NTA claimed that the increase in number of candidates from 20,38,596 in 2023 to 23,33,297 in 2024 (an increase of 14%) “naturally” led to an increase in the number of high scorers. However, when we look at the number of toppers (AIR 1) from just 2 in 2023 to a whopping 67 in 2024, which is much higher than the 14% increase in the number of candidates. NTA also stated that among the 67 toppers with perfect scores, 44 of them got 720 due to revision in one answer key of Physics and 6 candidates got 720 due to compensatory marks awarded for loss of time. This still leaves us with 17 candidates who scored 720, which cannot entirely be attributed to the 14% increase in the number of candidates.

Regardless of the explanations, such mark inflation of unprecedented magnitude has a grave impact on the morale of students and tutors. For them, this means that even a very high score in a competitive exam like NEET, that demands tremendous efforts on their part to achieve, does not guarantee a decent result, which not only leaves them in a highly precarious state but also undermines their trust in the examination (and the education) system. Hence, the NTA must acknowledge the gravity of the issue instead of trying to write it off as a trivial consequence of increase in the number of candidates.

The judgement referred by the NTA for giving compensatory marks was for the case of Disha Panchal vs Union of India where the Supreme Court addressed issues with the conduct of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018. Due to technical glitches and mismanagement, many candidates faced difficulties, such as login failures and interruptions, leading to significant time loss during the exam. The Court ordered the application of a normalisation formula to adjust scores for affected candidates. There are multiple issues with using this judgment and its normalization formula for an exam like NEET. 

Online Vs Offline

The first major difference between the CLAT 2018 and the NEET 2024 exam is the mode of administration. The CLAT 2018 exam was conducted online, in which the students log into a system that meticulously tracks their activity. This system records the exact login time and technical glitches which allows the organising agency to determine with precision the exact amount of time lost by each student during the exam.

In contrast, the NEET exam was conducted in offline mode, making it impossible to accurately determine and compensate for any disruptions or time lost during the examination process. This fundamental difference in the mode of exam and data tracking facilities has significant implications for how the issue of time loss should be addressed and rectified in these different high-stakes exams.

In the press release, NTA mentioned that to address the concerns raised by the candidates regarding loss of examination time, factual reports of the functionaries and CCTV footages from the concerned exam centres were used to ascertain the time lost and with this data, the students were compensated using the formula devised and used for the CLAT 2018 case. Using CCTV footages to determine the time lost cannot be considered a valid replacement to the online logs which recorded the time lost to the second. The uncertainties introduced by this method of using CCTV footage to determine the time lost undermines the revered objective nature of the NEET exam itself.

In competitive exams like NEET, the discriminant at play between candidates of equal or similar subject mastery is often simply time management during the exam. It is a scenario in which time has the potential to almost convert into a rise in rank. In NEET, even a small difference in mark can result in a large difference in rank. Hence, not being precise and meticulous about time lost or compensatory marks is unfair to all the candidates and seriously brings into question the fairness of the exam.

Grievance Redressal

The second notable difference pertains to the grievance redressal mechanism established during the CLAT 2018 proceedings in the Supreme Court. On May 25, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an interim order that set up a grievance redressal committee composed of several judges and professors. This committee was tasked with examining every single complaint received from the candidates regarding the exam.

Moreover, the Supreme Court mandated the creation of a dedicated email account for students to submit their grievances. This email address was shared on the official CLAT website, ensuring that every candidate had ample time and opportunity to report any issues that they had encountered during the exam, particularly concerning lost time due to technical problems. 

The students were given a specific period to lodge their complaints. The grievance committee was then responsible for reviewing the complaints, assessing the validity of the grievances, and providing appropriate recommendations or decisions to the Supreme Court within a specified timeframe. This meticulous process ensured a thorough examination of all concerns, which contrasts sharply with the current handling of grievances in the case of NEET where no such open grievance redressal mechanism was set up to ensure the opportunity for all candidates to raise complaints on the conduct of the exam. Notably, in the press release, NTA informed that 1563 candidates, out of the 23 lakh candidates who appeared for NEET, were compensated.

In the case of CLAT 2018, the committee concluded in their report that the majority of the issues with the exam stemmed from the online nature of the exam. They found that many students experienced difficulties with the initial login process, and multiple login attempts further exacerbated the system’s performance issues. The report highlighted significant software and hardware inefficiencies that magnified these problems. The organizing agency’s failure to provide adequate and efficient software and computers was a critical factor contributing to these interruptions. Additionally, power failures at various centers caused further loss of time and disrupted the students’ concentration, impeding their smooth performance during this high-stakes test.

These findings underscore that the issues faced during CLAT 2018 were primarily due to its online mode of administration. In contrast, NEET 2024, conducted in an offline mode, presented a completely different set of challenges that differs fundamentally from those in an online setting.

Suggestions by the Committee

The committee proposed two potential courses of action to the Supreme Court. The first option was to cancel the entire test and reconduct it. However, the committee did not recommend this due to the significant logistical challenges. Instead, the committee favored a second approach, which was ultimately accepted. This method involved compensating students with additional marks to account for the time lost due to technical issues. The committee acknowledged that it lacked the expertise to devise an appropriate formula for this compensation. Therefore, they recommended that the Supreme Court appoint a competent statistician to develop a fair formula for awarding extra marks to the affected candidates.

The committee also recommended that, since an initial rank list had already been published, the updated rank list with normalized marks should not affect the existing rankings. To accommodate these additional entrants, an equal number of supernumerary seats were to be created on an ad hoc basis, ensuring that the students who were initially ranked did not lose their positions. The Supreme Court stated that it accepted this uncustomary practice as they did not want the students to suffer due to additional delay and went on to allow the creation of supernumerary seats for the candidates with revised scores to get admission.

In contrast, there was no initial rank list prior to the normalization in NEET 2024. The only rank list released included the updated scores of affected candidates. This lack of an initial ranking list and the subsequent release of a revised rank list without clear explanation about the normalization process has led to suspicion about whose marks have been adjusted and by how much. Unlike the CLAT case, where even supernumerary seats were introduced to maintain fairness, the NEET process appears opaque, leaving students unsure of how their scores were calculated and how the normalization impacted their ranks.

 Normalization formula for CLAT 2018

The entire normalization procedure rests on having the time lost by each candidate in seconds accurately which was possible in the online mode as the precise log in and log out times were recorded by the system.

Since they know the number questions attempted by the students and know how many of it were correct and incorrect, they compute the total original score out of all attempted questions.

They define the quantity Answering Efficiency as the following:

They then compute the number of additional questions the candidate would have attempted had there been no time loss using:

The number of additional questions so obtained is rounded to the nearest whole number, e.g. if we get 14.31, it is rounded to 14 (as apparent in the image above) and if we get 14.52, it is rounded to 15.

Now, they add this to the actual number of questions attempted to get the revised total number of questions attempted i.e, the total number of questions that the candidate would have attempted had there been no time loss.

To calculate the revised number of correctly and wrongly answered questions, they linearly extrapolate the ratio of correct and incorrect answers to the actual number of questions attempted onto the revised number of total questions attempted.

Both the revised number of right and wrong answers are rounded off to the nearest whole numbers. From the revised number of correct and wrong answers thus obtained, the normalized scores are calculated as per the exam’s marking scheme.

NTA, in the press release, claimed that it was due to the implementation of formula devised for the CLAT 2018 case, that two candidates got 718 and 719 marks respectively. However, according to the CLAT 2018 normalization procedure, the formula is used to compute the revised number of questioned answered correctly and wrongly (which are whole numbers) onto which the examination’s existing marking scheme is applied on. In NEET, the revised number of correct answers would be awarded +4 each and the revised number of wrong answers -1 each. Hence, while the normalized scores would be different from the original scores, the formula application does not explain the impossible scores such as 718 or 719, which is not allowed by the marking scheme. So even if NTA implemented this formula devised for the CLAT 2018 case, no candidate should be getting 719 or 718 marks. This raises the question of whether NTA actually implemented this formula and if so, whether it was implemented properly without errors. This discrepancy demands that NTA be transparent about the formula they used for revised scores and the rationale behind the method of adaptation of the formula in all intermediate steps in the process of normalization for public scrutiny.

We would like to note here that the procedure for normalization is not a simple awarding of certain number of marks for each minute lost commonly to all students affected. Rather, it factors in the accuracy rate (the ratio of actual number of right answers to the number of questions attempted) of each candidate in calculating their compensation. This is akin to the (sometimes controversial) application of the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern rule in cricket which factors in the run rate of the team to compute the revised target in a match interrupted by rain. Applying a simplified DLS method in a high-stakes competitive exam that decides the future of students requires careful deliberations and considerations. To ensure that the limitation of this system does not affect students, it is advisable to accommodate the candidates who gained eligibility with revised marks by creation of additional seats.

Moreover, based on the committee’s report, the Supreme Court recognized that, given the precise login and logout times recorded for each candidate, it was possible to accurately determine the actual time each candidate had available during the exam. This online data allowed for an exact calculation of the time lost by each student due to technical issues. As discussed earlier, this is not applicable for NEET, which is an offline exam.

In conclusion, the NTA has not provided a transparent and public explanation for the use of this specific formula for NEET, an offline exam. The ambiguity in the way in which this formula was applied raises concerns. There was no grievance redressal mechanism in place for all the candidates to utilize to represent the difficulties they faced. These, along with the sudden, rushed release of the NEET results on the night of the election counting day further exacerbates concerns about transparency and accountability. This situation has understandably led to widespread apprehension and frustration among students and parents who are now unsure of the fairness of the exam. NTA must come forward to explain the rationale behind its decisions and answer all the questions of the public.

Sulochan R is a PhD candidate in Science Education at Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR, Mumbai.

Pranav Jeevan P is a PhD candidate in Artificial Intelligence at IIT Bombay.

The post Scrutinising the procedure for awarding compensatory marks in NEET 2024 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Doctors had been hailed as “warriors” during the devastating Covid-19 second wave just months ago. Flower petals were showered on them from choppers as the government’s gesture on thanksgiving. Many on the frontline were young doctors who worked long hours, often staying away from families for months, till the killer wave subsided. Many lost their lives while on duty, trying to help others.

However, all that seems a thing of the past. On Monday December 27, a protest called by young doctors in New Delhi, was in the news for the wrong reasons. Doctors have alleged that while they were protesting the delay in NEET-PG counselling, they were “brutally thrashed and lathicharged” by Delhi Police personnel. Doctors shared photos and videos of the protest on social media.

By Tuesday, the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) called for a complete withdrawal from all healthcare services across the country from 8 A.M on December 29 “in protest against brute force by Delhi Police against doctors.” The FAIMA stated that “resident doctors were protesting peacefully and alleged that female doctors were brutally thrashed and lathicharged by male police personnel during the demonstration.” According to news reports, resident doctors’ associations of government-run hospitals also called for a complete shutdown of all healthcare institutions in protest of the alleged use of force and detention of doctors d by the Delhi Police, when the protest march headed towards the Supreme Court.

Federation of Resident Doctors Association (FORDA) also issued a statement against the alleged “police brutality” and called it a “black day in the history of the medical fraternity”. The Resident Doctors from Delhi’s major government hospitals, have been demanding the “immediate declaration of NEET PG 2021 counselling schedule”. The delays are reportedly “due to a clutch of cases pending in the Supreme Court over the recently introduced quota for the economically weaker sections”.

we shall fight we shall win @mansukhmandviya #NEETPGCounsellingDelay #DoctorsProtest

pic.twitter.com/m5moUg47Yw

— Dr Kafeel Khan (@drkafeelkhan) December 27, 2021

According to news reports, around 50 doctors, including the president of the FORDA that is leading the strike, were detained near ITO on Monday. Dr Anuj Aggarwal, general secretary of the resident doctors’ association of Safdarjung Hospital told mediapersons, “Both male and female doctors were dragged on the road. Several people were injured, some had lacerations from being dragged, others got hit against the barricades, and still others received injuries to their hand when the bus door was closed on it.” The doctors were later released.

#PressRelease: We strongly condemn this brutal act & demand immediate release of all #ResidentDoctors. There will be complete #Shutdown of Healthcare Institutions. #MedicalFraternity of the nation must come forward in support. We urge all State #RDAs to join the agitation! @ANI pic.twitter.com/ipbOxcnGFN

— FORDA INDIA (@FordaIndia) December 27, 2021

According to a report in Indian Express, the Delhi Police registered an FIR under sections of rioting, causing obstruction in duty and damaging public property against the doctors, at IP Estate police station after a complaint was filed by a police personnel.

Dr Manish, President @FordaIndia was hurt while resisting Delhi Police manhandled, pushed & detained Resident Doc’s today.
He was seen wearing a crepe bandage, right hand swollen
other detainees also got hurt while @DelhiPolice detained them#ExpediteNEETPGCounselling2021 pic.twitter.com/RJFUKaWq5P

— All India Dental Student Association/DENTODONTICS (@dentodontics) December 27, 2021

Doctors have put a banner in front of IHBAS Hospital in Delhi mentioning their issues and demands in Hindi.

डॉक्टर आम जनता को अपने साथ लेने के लिए आज अलग अलग क्षेत्रों में लोगों से समर्थन भी मांग सकते हैं। @FordaIndia #ExpediteNEETPGCounselling2021 pic.twitter.com/yNHT9PXcO4

— Hemant Rajaura (@hemantrajora_) December 28, 2021

The IE quoted Additional DCP (Central district) Rohit Meena as saying, “They came to protest and tried to stop the traffic movement. We tried to stop them and they then started marching towards the Supreme Court. We again stopped them after discussing with them. Seven police personnel received minor injuries and they have damaged two buses as well. We are taking legal opinion before lodging any FIR against them.” 

Over 2,500 resident doctors were detained at the Sarojini Nagar police station while they were marching towards the Union Health Minister’s residence. With no space within the police station, they stood outside. In addition to slogans, they also sang the national anthem, stated news reports.

2500 resident doctors detained again at Sarojini Nagar Police station while marching towards the health minister’s house, says @FordaIndia #ExpediteNEETPGCounselling2021 pic.twitter.com/hzO6PueH6I

— Anonna Dutt (@AnonnaDutt) December 27, 2021

The strike had resumed on December 17, and now the doctors are getting many messages of solidarity online.

फूल बरसाना दिखावे का PR था,
असलियत में अन्याय बरसा रहें हैं।

केंद्र सरकार के अत्याचार के ख़िलाफ़ मैं #CovidWarriors के साथ हूँ।#NEETPG pic.twitter.com/lzmWjLrwMZ

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) December 27, 2021

Shocking that our young colleagues who led the fight against #COVID19 were manhandled, arrested

We may add a million beds or ventilators but they are useless if we don’t have dedicated, skilled #Doctors to provide patient services

Calls for immediate intervention#NEETPG #NEET

— Dr Ambrish Mithal (@DrAmbrishMithal) December 28, 2021

It is crucial to remember that Doctors, nurses, and health workers on duty were hugely impacted during Covid-19 this year. By June, as many as 650 doctors of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) died due to Covid-19. According to their state-wise break-up of deaths, 109 deaths were recorded in Delhi within the past two months or so. States that followed suit were Bihar and Uttar Pradesh with 96 and 67 deaths respectively. By the end of the month, the national death count rose to 798 healthcare workers. 

Related:

Death came calling with a vengeance in 2021
650 doctors dead due to Covid-19 in around 2 months
EXCLUSIVE: PM must intervene, stop misinformation campaign, recognise Covid martyr medics: IMA chief
594 doctors died during second wave of Covid-19: IMA
Indian Medical Association seeks FIR against Ramdev
Gadbadjhala: Mystery that is PM CARES

The post How did it go from flower showers to alleged lathicharge on doctors? appeared first on SabrangIndia.