OMR Tampering Claim Dismissed As Baseless | Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds NEET Result, Rejects Student’s Allegations Against NTA
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati dismissed a writ petition challenging the authenticity of an OMR answer sheet used in the NEET (UG) 2025 examination. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention, alleging that the answer sheet attributed to her was tampered with and did not bear her handwriting or thumb impression. The Court, after hearing submissions and reviewing the evidence, concluded that there was no credible basis to support the allegations.
The Court held that the system implemented by the National Testing Agency (NTA) for collecting, sealing, and securing OMR answer sheets was reliable and eliminated the possibility of tampering. Observing inconsistencies in the petitioner's own signatures across multiple documents, the Court rejected the claim of forgery. Conclusively, the Bench stated that the petition lacked merit and required no further enquiry or intervention. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were declared closed.
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by a 22-year-old student from Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against the National Testing Agency (NTA) and other respondents, alleging that the OMR answer sheet furnished to her after the NEET (UG) 2025 examination was not the one she had submitted. She claimed that the sheet bore neither her handwriting nor her thumb impression and that only eleven questions were marked as attempted, whereas she had answered all 180 questions during the examination.
The petition named five respondents: the Union of India (Health, Medical & Family Welfare), the Union of India (Higher Education), the Medical Counselling Committee, the Director General of the NTA, and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner alleged that despite representations made on 5 June 2025 and 6 June 2025, the NTA failed to address her grievances regarding the mismatched answer sheet.
In her petition, the petitioner further requested a direction for a handwriting and thumb impression comparison between the disputed OMR sheet and her original records. She asserted that the discrepancies violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
An interlocutory application under Section 151 CPC was also filed, seeking a direction to reserve one MBBS/BDS seat in any Government or Private Medical College in Andhra Pradesh and an order restraining finalization of her examination result until the disposal of the writ petition.
Respondent No. 4, the Director General of NTA, filed a counter affidavit denying all allegations. The NTA stated that NEET (UG) is a pen and paper-based examination using machine gradable OMR sheets provided at the exam centres. According to the affidavit, the petitioner was allotted Test Booklet Code 48 and Answer Sheet No. 116459984. She was required to and did fill in personal particulars, including name, father's and mother's names, and roll number. Her signature and thumb impression were obtained, and she signed an attendance sheet at the time of receiving the materials. Room invigilators countersigned these documents.
The NTA explained its protocol, stating that completed OMR answer sheets were sealed in pink paper envelopes in the examination room itself, in the presence of the candidates. Two candidates signed the sealed envelopes as witnesses. According to the agency, the answer sheet attributed to the petitioner showed only 11 attempted questions, of which only two were correct.
The NTA stated that its procedures were foolproof and designed to eliminate any opportunity for tampering or swapping of answer sheets. Consequently, the agency described the petition as false and devoid of merit.
In response, counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Suryanarayana, reiterated that the answer sheet provided to the petitioner post-examination was not the one she filled out. He argued that her signature and thumb impression had been forged, and the representations submitted for verification were ignored. The petitioner had, according to him, correctly answered 171 questions based on the official key.
The Court heard submissions from both sides, including the learned Central Government Standing Counsel Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar for Respondents 1 and 2 and the Government Pleader for Medical & Health for Respondent No. 5.
The Division Bench recorded the petitioner's main grievance as follows: "respondent no.4-The Director General of National Testing Agency (NTA) published a mismatched OMR answer sheet in lieu of the OMR answer sheet filled in by her and hence a thorough inquiry is sought to be ordered."
Addressing the NTA’s explanation, the Court recorded: "The OMR answer sheet which bears the aforesaid details would show that the petitioner had attempted only 11 questions out of 180, out of which only two (02) questions were correctly answered."
On the petitioner’s allegations of forgery and mismatch, the Court noted: "The procedure narrated by respondent no.4 in the counter affidavit regarding securing and sealing of OMR answer sheets in a pink paper envelop in the presence of students in the exam room itself and procuring signatures of two students as witnesses for due observance of the said procedure has not been denied by the petitioner by filing any reply."
The Court further stated: "In the absence of the same, it can safely be presumed that the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner along with other students of the exam room was placed in a pink paper envelop and the said envelop was sealed as described by respondent no.4 in the counter affidavit."
On the argument of signature mismatch, the Bench made detailed observations: "Upon close perusal, the signature of the petitioner found on the Admit Card-Provisional is not even matching with any of her signatures found on the writ affidavit and her vakalat filed at the first instance." The Court further noted: "The signature found on the no objection vakalat filed is not at all tallying with any of the signatures found on the writ affidavit, her first vakalat and also the Admit Card-Provisional."
Commenting on this inconsistency, the judges observed: "This shows that dissimilarity between the signatures on her Admit Card-Provisional and OMR answer sheet provided to her, cannot be considered as a ground to hold that there was tampering of OMR answer sheet filled in by her during examination."
Recognizing the natural variation in handwriting, the Court added: "The physical and emotional state of person at the time of subscribing the signature plays a vital role and would contribute a lot to inconsistencies." It continued: "The state of mind of the petitioner at the time of subscribing signature in exam room would definitely be anxious and stressed than at the time of subscribing the signature on Admit Card-Provisional."
Reinforcing the credibility of the sealing process, the Court stated: "The observation reached supra coupled with the presumption regarding the practice of securing and sealing the answer sheets by respondent no.4-the National Testing Agency would render the contention of the petitioner regarding tampering of OMR answer sheets an impossibility."
Lastly, the Bench considered the absence of any specific allegations of ill-will against invigilators: "The petitioner did not ascribe any ill-will or mala fide intention on the part of any of the officiating staff of the exam room to the effect that they might have tampered or swapped the OMR answer sheet filled in by the petitioner."
Based on the materials available and submissions made, the High Court concluded that the petition did not present sufficient merit for further action. It observed: "In view of the above, this writ petition being lack of merit deserves dismissal."
Accordingly, the Court ordered: "The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
In respect of other pending applications, the Court stated: "Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."
No further directions were issued concerning the inquiry, verification, or seat reservation as requested in the interlocutory application.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: T. Suryanarayana, Advocate
For the Respondents: Y.V. Anil Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel; Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Andhra Pradesh
Case Title: Dudekula Shameera v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010282182025
Case Number: W.P. No. 14243 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
