The NEET UG 2026 examination has once again come under scrutiny after three candidates approached the Bombay High Court alleging major differences between the marks indicated by their OMR responses and the scores shown on their final scorecards.
For students preparing for one of India’s most competitive medical entrance examinations, even a small difference in marks can significantly affect rank and admission opportunities. In these cases, however, the candidates have alleged differences running into hundreds of marks.
The Bombay High Court has now directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to produce the original OMR answer sheets and related records of the three candidates. The court’s examination of these records could help determine whether the discrepancies claimed by the students are supported by the original documents.
What Is the NEET UG 2026 OMR Dispute?
The issue concerns three NEET UG 2026 candidates who challenged their results after claiming that their declared marks did not match the scores they calculated from their OMR sheets using the official answer key.
The petitions were filed by candidates from different districts of Maharashtra. According to their claims, the differences between expected and declared scores were substantial, prompting them to seek verification of the original physical OMR sheets.
The Bombay High Court subsequently asked NTA to keep the original records ready for examination.
Student Claims 597 Marks, Scorecard Shows Only 45
One of the most striking allegations has been made by candidate Atharva Jagtap.
According to the petition, the OMR sheet sent to him indicated that his responses should result in a score of around 597 marks. However, his declared NEET UG 2026 score was reportedly only 45 marks.
The petition also claimed that calculations based on the information appearing on the scorecard itself produced 61 marks, adding another layer to the alleged discrepancy.
The candidate reportedly approached NTA through its grievance mechanism but claimed that the matter was not resolved before he approached the court.
522 Expected Marks but Only 95 Declared
Another candidate, Soham Nitin Gavte, has alleged a similarly large difference.
According to submissions made before the court, comparison of his OMR responses with the official answer key suggested a score of approximately 522 marks. His scorecard, however, reportedly showed only 95 marks.
The candidate’s representatives said that emails were sent to NTA between July 17 and July 19 seeking correction or clarification, but they alleged that no response was received.
The difference between 522 and 95 marks is significant because such a change could dramatically affect a candidate’s rank and medical admission prospects.
Candidate Raises Questions Over Two OMR Versions
The third petition involves candidate Hricha Prafull Deshpande.
According to the petition, she accessed her scanned OMR sheet through the NTA portal on July 13. The candidate claimed that this version appeared consistent with her performance in the June 21 re-examination.
However, an OMR sheet subsequently sent by email on July 15 allegedly differed from the version she had accessed on the portal.
The petition claims that the issue was raised with NTA before the declaration of the results. The candidate has sought verification of the original physical OMR sheet and correction of the result if an error is established.
What Has the Bombay High Court Said?
After hearing the petitions, a division bench of the Bombay High Court issued notices to NTA and the Central Government.
The court directed NTA to produce the original OMR answer sheets and related records of the three candidates for examination at the next hearing, scheduled for July 30, 2026.
This direction does not itself establish that the students’ allegations are correct. The original records will be important in determining whether the marks declared by NTA accurately reflect the candidates’ actual responses.
Why Are Original OMR Sheets Important?
The OMR answer sheet is one of the most important records in an examination such as NEET UG because it contains the responses marked by the candidate during the test.
NTA provides candidates access to scanned OMR images and recorded responses as part of the post-examination process. Candidates can compare their responses with the answer key and estimate their scores.
If a candidate believes that the responses recorded by the system do not match the OMR sheet, the original physical record can become crucial for verification.
That is why the High Court’s direction to produce the original sheets is significant in these cases.
What Does This Mean for NEET UG 2026 Candidates?
The ongoing case is particularly important for candidates who have noticed a genuine mismatch between their available OMR record, recorded responses and final score.
Students should avoid relying only on screenshots or information circulating on social media. They should preserve official documents downloaded or received through authorised channels, including their scorecard, OMR image, recorded responses, answer key and any communication with NTA.
If a discrepancy is noticed, candidates should follow the official grievance or challenge process applicable to their examination and retain proof of any representations submitted.
Candidates should also remember that the allegations in these three cases are currently subject to judicial examination. A court direction to produce records should not be interpreted as a final finding against NTA.
NTA Has Also Warned About Fake OMR Documents
The controversy comes at a time when NTA has separately addressed claims involving NEET UG 2026 OMR sheets circulating online.
The agency has issued notices concerning claims about OMR answer sheets and has also warned about fake, altered or AI-generated NEET UG 2026 documents.
This makes verification from official records especially important. Genuine candidate grievances need to be examined carefully, while manipulated or misleading documents can create confusion for students and parents.
What Happens Next?
The next major development in these petitions is expected when NTA produces the original OMR sheets and related records before the court.
Once the records are examined, the court will be in a better position to assess the students’ allegations and determine what further action, if any, is necessary.
If discrepancies are established, the proceedings could potentially lead to appropriate directions regarding verification or correction in the affected cases. Until the court examines the records and passes further orders, however, the claims remain allegations.
For NEET aspirants, the case is also a reminder to carefully save all official examination documents and check OMR responses and scorecards as soon as they become available.
Conclusion
The NEET UG 2026 OMR dispute involving three candidates has drawn attention because of the unusually large score differences they have alleged. Claims of 597 marks being reflected as 45 and 522 marks being reflected as 95 naturally raise serious questions that require documentary verification.
The Bombay High Court’s decision to seek the original OMR sheets gives the candidates’ claims an opportunity to be checked against the primary examination records.
The next hearing and examination of those records will therefore be important. Until then, students should rely on official updates from NTA and verified court developments rather than speculation circulating online.
Book your Free consultancy: 9350777177 / https://reliablestudy.com/
– Content Writer and SEO – Riya Singh
All right reserved – Reliable Study / https://reliablestudy.com/
FAQs
Three candidates have alleged that their declared NEET scores do not match scores calculated from their OMR responses.
The court wants the original records available to examine the candidates’ claims of score discrepancies.
Yes. One petitioner has alleged that his OMR responses indicated around 597 marks while his scorecard showed 45.
Another candidate claims his OMR and official answer key indicated 522 marks, while his declared score was 95.
No. The matter is under examination, and the court has sought the original records before deciding further.