NEET-PG 2026 answer key row: Supreme Court seeks NBEMS response on missing question papers

The association contends that the available records allow candidates to check the arithmetic behind their marks but leave the substantive correctness of the evaluation unverified.

The petition identifies several potential problems that candidates may struggle to investigate under the existing system. These include ambiguous questions, questions with multiple correct answers, errors in the official answer key and incorrect mapping of questions, options or recorded responses.

NBEMS responses to candidate grievances questioned

The petitioner states that candidates had asked NBEMS for the actual question paper, the official answer key and their recorded responses. According to the plea, they wanted the examination material itself rather than numerical references.

However, NBEMS reportedly replied to several complaints using standardized communications that described the declared results as "factual and correct". The responses also directed candidates to Point No. 9 of the board's September 24 public notice, the petition states.

The association argues that such replies do not resolve candidates' concerns because the underlying material needed to verify their answers remains unavailable.

It maintains that candidates should be able to compare the exact questions and options displayed during their examinations with the final answer key and the responses recorded by the examination authority.

What candidates want NBEMS to disclose

The petition asks the Supreme Court to direct NBEMS to provide each candidate with an examination record tailored to their individual question paper and response sequence.

The proposed record would include the actual questions in the order displayed during the examination, all answer options in their original sequence, the candidate's recorded responses, the final official correct answers and the marks awarded for every question.

The association has also requested permanent electronic copies of these records in downloadable formats, including PDF and CSV, or another suitable format.

It wants NBEMS to introduce a reasonable, time-bound objection process that begins after candidates receive and examine the actual questions and options. This would give them an opportunity to identify specific discrepancies rather than challenge results using numerical identifiers alone.

The plea further proposes a subject-expert committee to examine objections submitted by candidates. It seeks permission for candidates to support their challenges with authoritative medical material wherever relevant.

Where the review establishes errors, the petitioner wants the examination authority to correct the affected scores and ranks. Such changes could influence candidates' positions in the merit list and their prospects during postgraduate medical admissions.

Petition seeks changes beyond NEET-PG 2026

The association is also seeking a standardized disclosure framework for future postgraduate medical entrance examinations. It wants appropriate guidelines or standard operating procedures to ensure candidates receive information that allows them to independently examine their results.

The petition refers to *Upendra Yadav v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences*, an earlier case challenging the disclosure of Question IDs, answer keys and candidate responses through reference to the NEET-PG 2025 Master Set.

According to the current plea, the recurrence of these concerns across examination cycles points to a continuing problem with the way post-examination records are shared with candidates.

The petitioner argues that access to numerical data alone does not provide an adequate basis for examining the correctness of an answer key when question papers and answer choices have been shuffled for individual candidates.

Counselling timeline adds urgency to the case

The petition highlights the potential consequences of delays, noting that NEET-PG 2026 scores and ranks will determine candidates' positions in the counseling and admission process.

It warns that counseling could proceed before candidates have a meaningful opportunity to identify errors and obtain corrections. If discrepancies are discovered only after the process advances, candidates may face difficulties securing timely remedies.

The association has therefore asked the court to intervene before the admission process moves ahead without an effective mechanism for checking disputed results.

Specifically, it wants the Oct 1 NBEMS notice quashed to the extent that it limits access to Question IDs, numerical correct-answer identifiers, numerical candidate responses and question-wise marks while withholding the actual questions and candidate-specific answer options.

It has also sought directions requiring NBEMS to upload complete, individualized examination records to candidates' applicant logins.

The Supreme Court's notice brings the dispute over NEET-PG 2026 result transparency before the court. The petition seeks a disclosure system that would let candidates examine the questions they received, verify the answers attributed to them and pursue corrections through a defined review process.