The Bombay High Court has directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to produce the original OMR answer sheets of three NEET-UG 2026 candidates who have alleged significant discrepancies between their recorded responses and the marks declared in the examination results. The court has also issued notices to the NTA and the Central Government, seeking their responses to the petitions.The matter comes amid continuing concerns over NEET-UG 2026, where several candidates across the country have raised questions over OMR sheets, recorded responses and final scores. While the NTA has maintained that it is scrutinising complaints and has warned against the submission of fake or AI-generated OMR sheets, a number of students have continued to approach courts, claiming genuine mismatches between their answer sheets and declared marks.Court seeks original records before next hearingA division bench comprising Justice Nitin Suryawanshi and Justice Abhayasinh Shinde directed the NTA to keep the original OMR sheets and related records of the three petitioners ready for examination during the next hearing scheduled for July 30, 2026.Deputy Solicitor General Ajay Talhar, appearing for the Central Government, informed the court that the NTA had been directed to preserve and produce the original records on the next date of hearing.According to a Times of India report, the petitions have been filed by Richa Prafulla Deshpande from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Soham Nitin Gavte from Beed district and Atharva Jagtap from Dhule district. All three candidates contend that the marks calculated from their OMR sheets using the official answer key do not match the scores reflected in their result cards.Candidates allege large differences between OMRs and resultsRepresenting Richa Deshpande, advocate Amit Yadkikar, assisted by advocates Sneha Yadkikar and Prasanna Jarare, told the court that the 17-year-old candidate downloaded her scanned OMR sheet from the NTA portal on July 13, and it was consistent with her performance in the June 21 re-examination. However, the OMR sheet emailed by the NTA on July 15 allegedly differed from the version available on the portal.The petition states that despite bringing the discrepancy to the NTA’s notice before the declaration of results, no response was received and the result announced on July 16 was based on the disputed record. The petitioner has sought verification of the original physical OMR sheet and correction of the result if required.In Soham Gavte’s case, advocates Sudarshan Salunkhe and Mahendra Gandle submitted that the candidate should have scored 522 marks according to his OMR sheet and the official answer key, but his scorecard reflected only 95 marks. They informed the court that repeated emails sent to the NTA between July 17 and July 19 seeking correction did not receive any response.Another petition alleges 597 marks reduced to 45Atharva Jagtap’s counsel, advocate Narendra Sonawane, argued that the OMR sheet emailed by the NTA on July 14 indicated a score of 597 marks, whereas the declared result showed only 45 marks.The petition further claims that even a calculation based on the scorecard itself yields 61 marks, suggesting inconsistencies in the published result. It also states that the issue remained unresolved despite representations made through the NTA’s grievance redressal mechanism.With notices now issued to the NTA and the Central Government, the High Court will examine the original OMR sheets and related records during the next hearing on July 30 before deciding the matter further.
