The Supreme Court on May 25 asked the National Testing Agency to explain its compliance with earlier examination-reform directions, according to PTI's courtroom report. Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe sought an affidavit by Thursday, May 28, and responses from the Centre, NTA and CBI on petitions arising from the NEET controversy.
The bench directed that the petitions be served on Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and grouped similar matters together. PTI reported that the judges expressed disappointment about recurring problems after the 2024 proceedings. The immediate requirement was an account of implementation, rather than a final ruling replacing the testing agency.
Petitioner FAIMA sought restructuring or replacement of NTA and proposed temporary oversight of the re-examination by a committee chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, with cybersecurity and forensic expertise. These were requested remedies. PTI reported that the May 3 medical entrance examination had been cancelled on May 12 amid paper-leak allegations.
IANS separately reported that the matter was listed for May 29 and that K. Radhakrishnan was asked to explain implementation of his committee's recommendations. Other requests included computer-based testing, encrypted question-paper transmission and stronger cybersecurity arrangements. A request to adopt those measures did not itself establish that the court had ordered them.
The earlier reform process had a documented remit. On June 22, 2024, the Education Ministry constituted a seven-member expert committee chaired by former ISRO chief Radhakrishnan. Its terms covered the full examination process, data-security protocols and NTA's structure, with former AIIMS director Randeep Guleria and university and technology specialists among its members.
The ministry tasked that panel with examining paper-setting security, reviewing operating procedures, defining officials' responsibilities and assessing grievance handling. It originally allowed two months for a report and permitted additional subject experts to assist. Those specified responsibilities provide the background to the court's later demand for evidence that earlier recommendations had been implemented.
