Amid street protests by youth against leakage of examination materials and government demands for accountability and reforms, the Supreme Court stated on Friday that the current ad-hoc organization of the system is 'alarming' and cannot continue. The Court assured that it would take 'additional steps' to solve problems and ensure the integrity of the NEET examination.
Deputy Attorney General Tushar Mehta asserted that the government is ready to take '10 additional steps' to protect students' interests, and that this matter is under the highest level of control. However, the bench, comprising judges P. S. Narasimhi and Alok Arathe, demanded that he promptly make a decision and provide them with information on the details of the new system by August 3rd.
The Court also requested a response from the Central Government regarding the implementation of computer-based testing for admission to medical institutions, modeled after IIT-JEE. A series of petitions was considered, including statements from the Federation of All Indian Medical Associations and the United Front of Doctors, which called for judicial intervention to protect NEET from manipulation. At the beginning of the hearings, the Attorney General reported that the matter was under serious consideration by the government and requested a few days' adjournment, noting that certain events might occur soon.
Nevertheless, the bench pointed out several points that the government needs to address, including those related to implementing the recommendations of the high committee led by former ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan. The Court emphasized: 'We will highlight a couple of things we would like to note... Last time you mentioned the Radhakrishnan committee's recommendations. There is a specific reference to the governing council there. Therefore, your affidavit must state what has been done regarding the governing council, which will consist of transparency, nominations, and stakeholders.'
The Supreme Court stated that it would monitor the process until the system becomes institutionalized. 'We are focused on institutionalization. The ad-hoc organization has worried us the most over these years.'
The bench raised questions about an important aspect—the transition to computer-based testing. Questions were raised about the feasibility of such a transition, how data would be transferred, and how it would be protected, as data security is the most crucial aspect. The Court asked for information on cybersecurity, who would handle it, and how it would be conducted.
Dr. Radhakrishnan, head of the monitoring committee established by the Supreme Court in 2024 to propose ways to strengthen NEET, had previously informed the court that the committee presented 35 long-term and about 60 short-term recommendations, most of which have already been implemented. He noted that the reforms generally yielded positive results in NEET-PG 2025, which was conducted 'mostly satisfactorily', except for some issues such as power outages.
During a meeting of the parliamentary faction, the Prime Minister made a serious statement regarding the incident of the NEET exam material leak. He emphasized that the government reacted immediately to the situation and ensured that those responsible were held accountable.
The Prime Minister called this incident a 'grave sin' and noted that a re-assessment was conducted after the leak. According to sources, at the meeting, the Prime Minister directly stated that all individuals involved in the case had been arrested, with 13 arrests recorded so far.
He insisted that the harshest measures must be applied against those responsible so that no one dares to commit such an act in the future. The Prime Minister's statement came amid widespread indignation among students and parents across the country over the NEET material leak.
Since the future of millions of students is tied to this exam, the news of the leak quickly turned into a major national problem. Following this, the government instructed investigative bodies to conduct a thorough investigation into the case, which led to arrests and action against the guilty parties.
During the meeting, the Prime Minister also appealed to state governments to strengthen the examination system so that such leaks do not happen again. The government's position is clear: any form of corruption related to exams will not be tolerated, and the guilty will receive strict punishment.
The Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of the liberty of detained individuals, noting that while states often vehemently oppose bail applications, they fail to take appropriate measures to expedite judicial proceedings, despite repeated rulings by the apex court on the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial.
After the court fined SP Amritsar 50,000 rupees for Punjab failing to ensure the timely presentation of the accused in court to speed up the process, while simultaneously objecting to his bail application despite prolonged detention, the bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheila Nagu found similar shortcomings in Maharashtra.
The bench expressed disapproval of the negligence that undermines the right to a speedy trial. The court stated: 'Every day we receive such cases from Maharashtra—vehement opposition to bail, but no steps taken to accelerate the process. When we hear the case, the evidence is weak. We will publicly expose you (the state). '
The accused, foreign national Kelvin Chindozie Okoro, had been in prison for four years. Out of 34 witnesses, only two have been examined so far. He was arrested in May 2022 on charges of kidnapping and murder. The High Court twice rejected his plea for bail—in June 2024 and March of this year.
Okoro reported being detained for four years, and his case was scheduled for 86 dates in the trial court, yet he failed to appear in court 53 times.
The court ruled that it would not grant bail on the merits of the case but noted a serious lapse on the part of Maharashtra regarding the failure to present the accused in court on every hearing date. Referencing repeated Supreme Court decisions on the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial, the court expressed dismay. It observed: 'We feel embarrassed. Only two out of 34 witnesses have been examined in four years. This aspect has concerned the court for some time. When a state vehemently opposes bail applications, it is obligated to conduct the trial smoothly, but this is not happening.'
When the Maharashtra lawyer stated that the state had previously made lapses but had now achieved a 100% rate in presenting the accused in court on every hearing date, the Supreme Court pointed out that this is a problem prevalent across India. The court demanded: 'States must develop specific policies to expedite judicial processes.'
In the case of Punjab, the bench led by Justice Amanullah noted: 'At least four witnesses should be examined per week, and a protocol of this order should be submitted to the trial court. If such cases are brought to our attention in the future, similar strict orders will be passed.'
