The Delhi High Court on 3 September directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to declare the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination results of two candidates within 24 hours, ruling that their results could not be withheld solely on the basis of unproven allegations linked to the question paper leak. The court noted that the candidates had been named as witnesses — not accused — in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chargesheet.

Background: From Cancelled Exam to Withheld Results

The two petitioners, Aditya Vinod Swami and another candidate, had originally appeared for NEET-UG 2026 conducted on 3 May. The examination was subsequently cancelled following widespread allegations of a question paper leak. Both candidates then appeared in the Re-NEET examination.

After completing its probe into the alleged leakage, the CBI filed a chargesheet in which the two were listed as witnesses, not as accused persons. Despite this distinction, the NTA issued show-cause notices to the petitioners on 5 July and withheld their Re-NEET results, effectively blocking them from participating in the ongoing counselling process.

What the Court Said

A single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the petitioners could not be treated as individuals against whom criminal culpability had been established. 'At this stage, therefore, the petitioners cannot be treated as persons against whom criminal culpability has been established or as having been found guilty of any illegality,' the court stated in its order.

The bench emphasised that the CBI chargesheet was 'yet to be tested in accordance with law' and that the allegations contained therein would 'necessarily have to be established by leading appropriate evidence.' The court further observed that the petitioners were at a 'nascent stage of their academic careers' and that withholding results on the basis of untested allegations would cause them serious prejudice.

NTA and CBI Arguments

Counsel for the NTA submitted that the agency had withheld the results after the CBI informed it that several candidates had allegedly received or shared the question paper from the 3 May examination. The CBI, in its submissions, contended that the petitioners had received the question paper and had the 'mens rea' to commit the alleged illegality, and that money had reportedly been paid to obtain the paper.

The CBI also stated that it had taken a 'liberal view' by not arraying the students as accused and had instead cited them as witnesses. The court, however, found this insufficient justification for blocking their results and counselling participation.

Court's Directions and Next Steps

Justice Singh directed the NTA to declare the petitioners' results within 24 hours of uploading the order and to permit them to participate in further rounds of counselling, subject to their fulfilling applicable eligibility criteria. The court also allowed candidates whose counselling results had not yet been declared to apply offline.

Crucially, the court clarified that its order would not prevent authorities from proceeding against the petitioners in accordance with law if warranted. The main petition has been listed for hearing on 8 January 2027. The ruling underscores a broader judicial principle: allegations in a chargesheet, however serious, do not amount to established guilt until tested by evidence.