The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a petition that alleged errors in the NEET UG 2025 question paper. The bench advised the petitioner to approach the High Court first.
The plea had been filed by a NEET UG 2025 aspirant seeking judicial intervention to correct alleged discrepancies in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) conducted earlier this year by the National Testing Agency (NTA).
The petitioner claimed that multiple questions in the paper were either incorrect, ambiguous, or not based on the prescribed syllabus.
| NEET UG Counselling Guide 2025 | |
|---|---|
| State-wise MBBS/BDS Counselling Guide eBook 2025 | 📥 Download |
| MCC NEET UG Counselling Guide eBook 2025 | 📥 Download |
| AACCC AYUSH NEET Counselling Guide eBook 2025 | 📥 Download |
However, the Supreme Court declined to intervene at this stage, stating that the appropriate forum for such grievances would be the concerned High Court.
“We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. The petitioner may seek appropriate remedies before the High Court,” the bench remarked, effectively closing the door on a direct Supreme Court review of the NEET paper.
Join NEET News 2025 The decision is consistent with the Court’s past stance of directing such academic disputes to High Courts unless there is an overarching constitutional violation involved. The top court has often maintained that subject matter experts and the concerned examination authorities are better equipped to handle technical issues related to exam content.
The NEET UG 2025 examination, which was held in May, witnessed participation from over 22 lakh aspirants competing for medical and dental seats across India. Since the release of the official answer key and results, multiple complaints have emerged from candidates and coaching institutes citing errors and inconsistencies in a few questions.
While the NTA has provided a mechanism to challenge answer key discrepancies through a formal objection process, some students have taken legal routes, citing a lack of adequate redressal.
Legal experts noted that the Supreme Court’s refusal does not imply the claim lacks merit, but only that the matter must follow the proper judicial hierarchy.
“Article 226 of the Constitution gives High Courts the power to review such administrative actions, and they are generally the first forum of appeal in these cases,” said constitutional law expert Prof. Ramesh Yadav.
It now remains to be seen whether the petitioner will file a fresh plea before a relevant High Court and whether any academic relief will be offered, especially as the NEET UG 2025 counselling process is already underway.
