The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a 17-year-old NEET UG 2026 aspirant who disputed the 160 marks awarded to her by the National Testing Agency (NTA). The student had claimed that her performance should have earned her approximately 680 marks out of 720.
The dispute was resolved after the original OMR answer sheet was made available for physical inspection. Following the verification, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the scorecard issued by the NTA was, in fact, correct. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petition and imposed Rs 25,000 in costs.
The judgment was delivered on August 24 by a division bench comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas.
The petition was filed by Shrishti Shantibodh Mishra, a minor seeking admission to an MBBS course, through her natural guardian mother.
The student had challenged the July 16, 2026, scorecard, arguing that the NTA's award of 160 marks out of 720 was arbitrary and did not correspond with the answers she had marked in the examination.
Among the reliefs sought before the court were the cancellation of the scorecard, production of her original OMR answer sheet, and verification and re-tallying of the responses recorded on the physical answer sheet.
The petitioner maintained during the proceedings that her declared score was incorrect. Based on her own calculation after comparing her responses with the answer key, she believed that her expected score was around 680 marks.
As the case progressed, the authorities allowed the student to personally examine her original OMR answer sheet. The step was taken to ensure that her concerns regarding the marks could be independently verified.
The petitioner had also submitted an additional affidavit on August 7, stating that she was willing to attend the physical inspection. She had acknowledged that legally permissible consequences could follow if her claim regarding the marks turned out to be incorrect.
The court noted that the petitioner had remained confident throughout the proceedings that the 160 marks awarded to her did not represent her actual performance.
However, the situation changed after she inspected the original OMR sheet. Acting on her instructions, her counsel told the court that the student had found the 160 marks out of 720 awarded in the scorecard to be correct.
With the petitioner's own verification confirming the NTA's score, the bench observed that there was no longer any dispute requiring adjudication.
The court recorded that the contention raised by the petitioner had been found to be "totally incorrect."
The Centre, appearing through its counsel, opposed the allegations made against the NTA. It argued that the claims were without basis and submitted that such allegations had affected the reputation of the authorities, including the testing agency.
The respondents also highlighted that the petitioner had already been informed about the possible consequences if her claim was ultimately found to be incorrect.
The High Court also commented on the circumstances in which the litigation had been pursued. While acknowledging that genuine disputes may arise in such matters, the bench noted that the petitioner had repeatedly maintained that the NTA scorecard was wrong.
According to the court, she changed her position only after getting an opportunity to physically inspect the original OMR answer sheet.
The bench further noted that the case had come up before the court on multiple occasions and that the petitioner had consistently sought physical verification of the answer sheet. As a result, the authorities had to activate the administrative process required to arrange the verification.
The court described the petitioner's conduct in the circumstances as "totally blameworthy.
While considering the appropriate costs, the bench observed that it could have imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000. However, since the matter concerned a student, the court decided to reduce the amount.
The High Court ultimately imposed Rs 25,000 in costs and dismissed the petition.
The court directed that the amount be deposited within four weeks by the petitioner's natural guardian mother. The payment is to be made to the Public Welfare Account maintained with the Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
The NTA's official NEET portal currently contains the NEET-UG 2026 scorecard, OMR-related information and public notices concerning claims involving OMR answer sheets.
