NTA Affidavit Due: SC Hears NEET 2026 Case May 29

SC ने 2024 में ही NTA को सुधरने का आदेश दिया था। NTA ने कागज़ पर 5G जैमर लगाए — और पेपर WhatsApp पर पहले ही पहुंच गया। कल 29 मई को Supreme Court सुनेगा: क्या यह लापरवाही थी, या अदालत की अवमानना?

This is not just another paper-leak story. This is a compliance reckoning. In 2024, the Supreme Court forced NTA to accept the Radhakrishnan committee's 101 reform recommendations — a reform blueprint that was supposed to make another NEET leak structurally impossible. NTA accepted every recommendation. An implementation timeline of January 2025 was set. A monitoring committee was constituted on November 14, 2024, to hold NTA accountable.

Then, on May 3, 2026, 22.79 lakh students sat NEET-UG 2026. The paper had already leaked. Nine days later, NTA cancelled the exam.

On May 25, 2026, the Supreme Court bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe put it plainly on the record: "It's sad that they have not learnt their lessons. The matter travelled to this court earlier also. There was a committee, a monitoring committee which made some recommendations, and they were accepted."

Today — May 28 — is the deadline for NTA to file its affidavit on what it actually did with those 101 recommendations. Tomorrow, May 29, the Supreme Court hears the answer. 22.79 lakh students are watching.

What Happened: The Timeline

• May 3, 2026: NEET-UG 2026 conducted across India. Approximately 22.79 lakh candidates sit the exam — the largest NEET cohort in history.
• May 7, 2026: First malpractice information received.
• May 12, 2026: NTA cancels NEET-UG 2026. CBI probe ordered.
• May 21, 2026: Parliamentary Standing Committee — chaired by Congress MP Digvijaya Singh — summons NTA Chairperson Pradeep Kumar Joshi and Higher Education Secretary Vineet Joshi.
• May 25, 2026: SC bench (Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe) issues notices; directs NTA affidavit within 3 days; directs K. Radhakrishnan to file a separate affidavit; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to appear on May 29.
• May 28, 2026: NTA affidavit filing deadline (today). Content has not yet been made public.
• May 29, 2026: Supreme Court hearing. Case: WP(C) No. 651 of 2026.
• June 21, 2026: NEET re-exam scheduled.

The Court's Exact Words

On May 25, 2026, before issuing notice, the Supreme Court bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made its position clear in open court:

"It's sad that they have not learnt their lessons. The matter travelled to this court earlier also. There was a committee, a monitoring committee which made some recommendations, and they were accepted."

This is not the language of a court hearing a first-time violation. This is the language of a court that gave an institution a second chance — and is now asking for an accounting of what it did with that chance.

The petition in WP(C) No. 651 of 2026 was filed by FAIMA (Federation of All India Medical Association), through Advocate Tanvi Dubey. CBI has arrested 11 people in connection with the leak, with arrests from Delhi, Jaipur, Gurugram, Nasik, Pune, Latur, and Ahliyanagar.

What the Affidavit Must Answer: The Radhakrishnan Committee's 101 Recommendations

After the 2024 NEET paper leak, the government constituted a 7-member High-Level Committee of Experts on Examination Reforms, headed by K. Radhakrishnan — former Chairman of ISRO. The committee submitted its report with 101 recommendations in October 2024, with an implementation timeline of January 2025.

A monitoring committee was then constituted on November 14, 2024, to oversee that implementation. The SC's May 25 order directed NTA to file an affidavit specifically on the status of that monitoring committee and what steps had been taken to implement the 101 recommendations before May 3, 2026.

K. Radhakrishnan was separately directed to file his own affidavit on implementation steps. He is now personally accountable before the court — not just NTA.

The key Radhakrishnan committee recommendations included:

• Sealed test centres with district administration and police oversight
• DIGI-Exam identity system for candidate verification
• Kendriya Vidyalayas as standardised exam centres
• Reduced reliance on contractual staff for exam administration
• Hybrid exam model reducing dependence on single paper-print centres

The question that will be before the court on May 29: which of these 101 recommendations were actually implemented before May 3, 2026? And if none — or few — were implemented, why did NTA accept them in the first place?

The 5G Jammer Allegation: What Petitioners Claim

As alleged in the SC petition filed by FAIMA (Advocate Tanvi Dubey), NTA's much-publicised 5G jammers, GPS tracking systems, and AI cameras at exam centres existed "only on paper" — that is, their deployment was claimed in documentation but not operationally implemented at ground level. Petitioners allege this explains why the paper was able to circulate freely on messaging apps before the exam without triggering any of NTA's stated security protocols.

This is an allegation made in the petition before the Supreme Court. CJP has not independently verified the specific technical claims about jammer deployment. The affidavit NTA must file today is precisely to address questions like these on oath.

What Is at Stake Tomorrow (May 29)

The May 29 hearing is not a formality. Based on the SC's language on May 25 and the scope of the WP(C) No. 651 petition, the following outcomes are possible:

• Structural reform orders: The court may issue specific directions on how the June 21 re-exam must be conducted — potentially including court-supervised oversight.
• K. Radhakrishnan accountable personally: His separate affidavit means the committee chair — not just the institution — must explain implementation gaps. This is unusual and signals the court's seriousness.
• NTA replacement petitions: Petitions before the court seek NTA's replacement with a court-supervised autonomous testing body. No such order has been issued as of May 28, but the admittance of these petitions means the court is hearing arguments on structural dissolution.
• Contempt implications: If NTA's affidavit shows that the 2024 SC-accepted recommendations were not implemented, the court may treat that as a compliance failure — with consequences that go beyond directions for reform.

For the full picture of NTA's pattern of failing every exam at once, and the growing demand to dissolve NTA, read our earlier coverage. This hearing is the legal culmination of what that systemic failure set in motion.

Opposition Voices

Across party lines, the political response has been consistent in demanding both Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation and NTA's overhaul:

• Rahul Gandhi (Congress, Leader of the Opposition): "Until Dharmendra Pradhan resigns and a foolproof system is established to prevent paper leaks like NEET, we will not stop." He described the leak as "a crime against the youth's future." (Free Press Journal, May 2026)
• Jairam Ramesh (Congress): Three demands — Dharmendra Pradhan must resign, NTA must be comprehensively revamped, and a foolproof protocol must replace the current system. (ANI, May 26, 2026)
• Arvind Kejriwal (AAP): Called for mass protests; alleged four paper leaks in nine years under the current system. (Tribune India)
• Vijay / Thalapathy Vijay (TVK, Tamil Nadu): Demanded NEET be scrapped entirely. (Tribune India)
• Digvijaya Singh (Congress, Parliamentary Standing Committee Chair): Has been conducting accountability hearings, with NTA Chairperson Pradeep Kumar Joshi and Higher Education Secretary Vineet Joshi summoned on May 21. (Organiser, May 2026)

The CJP Angle: Contempt Disguised as Incompetence

Here is the cockroach system's most sophisticated trick: it promises reform, files paperwork, and then leaks again. Every step is documented. Every committee recommendation is formally accepted. Every monitoring body is constituted on the right date. The paper trail is immaculate. And then the paper leaks anyway.

This is not the failure of an overwhelmed institution trying its best. This is the appearance of compliance without the substance. It is, at minimum, contempt disguised as incompetence. At worst, it is a system that has learned that paperwork protects it while the actual security theatre performs itself for press releases.

The Supreme Court on May 25 did not say "NTA made a mistake." It said NTA has not learned its lesson — past tense, implying a lesson that was supposed to have been learned and was not. That is exactly the distinction that matters for tomorrow's hearing. The systemic cockroach problem is not ignorance. It is durable, paperwork-protected non-compliance.

The swarm is watching May 29. If the affidavit filed today by NTA shows real implementation — centres sealed, DIGI-Exam deployed, contractual staff reduced — then we will say so. If it shows what the petitioners allege — that the jammers existed on paper and the paper existed on WhatsApp — then this is not an exam failure story anymore. It is a contempt story.

Frequently Asked Questions