Sahil Paliwal v. Union of India and Others

16. He further invites attention of the court, to the QR Code on the alleged score card of the petitioner annexed to the present petition, to contend that upon scanning, it opens the page of Kalpataru on the website of Maharashtra RERA Department, which prima facie shows that the score card alleged to have been issued by respondent/NTA, showing petitioner’s marks as 612, is false, fabricated and tampered document.

17. He also draws attention of the Court to the Test Booklet filed by the petitioner pursuant to the directions given by the Court, to contend that petitioner has deliberately masked his name as well as Roll number, both in figures and words, written in his own handwriting at the time of exam, but incidentally petitioner has not masked the pre-printed Text Booklet number 6125263263 which matches with the number that petitioner filled in his own handwriting on the attendance sheet.

18. He further contends that marks and rank on the score card on which reliance has been placed by petitioner are not matching. Elaborating on his submission, he submits that as per 612 marks claimed by petitioner in the score card on which reliance has been placed, All-India Rank of petitioner is coming up 510 whereas as per the official record of NTA, candidate with the similar marks would have got All-India Rank between 710 to 740.

19. In rejoinder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner is disputing the attendance sheet as well as the OMR sheet, which has been placed on record by the NTA, and the same does not pertain to the petitioner. He also denies petitioner’s signatures, on both the said documents. He submits that facts of the present case warrants investigation and the petitioner is ready to co-operate in such investigation.

20. I have heard Mr. Satayam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, Mr. Sanjay Khanna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.2/NTA and have perused the record.

21. It is the case of the petitioner that when he applied for NEET (UG) 2025 Examination, the application number which was generated upon registration was 250411670670 (Annexure P-3). Further, admit card was issued by the Respondent No. 2/NTA to the petitioner, and the same shows his roll number as 3907205568 (Annexure P-4). It is further the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the NEET (UG) 2025 and obtained 612 marks, 95.4130516 percentile, All India Rank 510 and SC Category Rank 104 as per the score card (Annexure P-5).

22. It is also alleged that when the petitioner attempted to register for counselling with the aforesaid roll number 3907205568, the system showed the data of another candidate. He was, therefore, unable to register for the counselling process of NEET (UG) 2025 and was resultantly excluded.

23. On the other hand, the stand taken by respondent no. 2/NTA is that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are forged and fabricated. In fact, according to the petitioner’s OMR sheet, which has been placed on record with the counter-affidavit, the petitioner attempted 138 questions, resulting in 38 correct and 100 incorrect answers. The score card (Annexure R2/5) of the petitioner thus, placed on record by the respondent no.2/NTA shows that the petitioner has scored only 52 marks out of 720.

24. A perusal of the both the score cards – one filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, as well as, the other placed by the respondent no.2/NTA along with its counter-affidavit, shows that both bear the QR Codes.

25. Notably, the purpose behind making a document “QR-codeverifiable” is to verify the authenticity of contents of such document and to ascertain whether contents on the document are as per the official record or not.

26. In response to a specific query posed by the Court regarding the QR Code on the scorecard filed with the petition, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly concedes that the scanning of said QR Code leads to the “Project Details: Kalpataru Radiance A”, a page on the official Maharashtra RERA Department website. On the other hand, scanning of QR Code on the scorecard filed by respondent no. 2/NTA directs to the petitioner's scorecard (Annexure R-5), which according to the NTA is the genuine scorecard. Thus, this Court finds that the scorecard as placed on record by the petitioner, has failed the QR-code-validity test.[1]

27. This Court vide order dated 11.08.2025 had also directed the petitioner, to place on record his question paper (test booklet), the original admit card, as well as, emails which have been received by the petitioner from the respondent no.2/NTA, along with his affidavit.

28. In deference to this direction, the petitioner has filed an affidavit along with Admit Card-Provisional, test booklet, as well as, a copy of the email dated 14.06.2025 allegedly received by the petitioner from the respondent no.2 forwarding the score card on which the petitioner has placed reliance.

29. Intriguingly, the score card which forms part of the email dated 14.06.2025 does not have any QR Code and it does not resemble the usual format of scorecards which are uploaded by the respondent no.2/NTA.

30. Further, the test booklet which has been filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has masked his name as well as his roll number which a candidate is expected to write both in figures & in words on the said booklet by scratching off the same with pen. The first page of the test booklet is Shantanu Bhopale Vs Union of India through the department of Higher Education [Writ Petition No. 3649 OF 2025; decided on 02.05.2025] reproduced herein below for ready reference: TEST BOOKLET AS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE B)

31. Incidentally, the test booklet number is still visible on the above quoted first page of said document, which is 125263263. Thus, test booklet number tallies with the test booklet number filled by the petitioner with his own writing on the pre-printed, attendance sheet (Annexure R2/3). The petitioner in his affidavit filed pursuant to the directions in order dated 11.08.2025, has not furnished any justification for masking his name, as well as, roll number on the test booklet. The roll number on the text booklet, if not masked, would have resolved the conundrum either way. Thus, such an act of petitioner prima facie shows mala fide intent on his part to destroy the best evidence and mislead the Court.

32. A perusal of NTA’s affidavit shows that it has quoted the contents of a communication dated 01.09.2025 received by it from the NIC wherein NIC has stated that emails were sent to the petitioner, as well as, to his parents along with the OMR sheet, and the score card. The relevant para from the counter-affidavit of respondent no.2/NTA in which the NIC communication has been quoted reads thus:

19. That National Informatics Centre (NIC) is the technical partner of NTA in NEET (UG) 2025, and vide its Letter No.NIC/PEP/NEET/2025/17 dated 01.09.2025 it has confirmed the following: "a) The copy of confirmation page is enclosed (ConfirmationPage- 250411340690.pdf) b) The scanned copy of OMR and candidate responses as obtained from NTA was displayed on portal on 3-June-25, 12.15 PM. The OMR and responses of the aforesaid candidate was uploaded on NIC server only once. There is no change in any of these since uploading. c) As per record available in database server, the scanned copy of the OMR is enclosed (OMR 250411340690.jpg). The scanned copy of OMR as an attachment in jpg format was shared on candidate's (sahiljatav816@gmail.com) and parent's/guardian's (rajendrapaliwal 1653@gmail.com) email on 2025-06-03 22:34 with a copy to NTA in BCC at OMR12- NEETUG2025@NTA.AC.IN d) The OMR sent on the candidate email and the one displayed to the candidate on the examination portal is the same as provided by NTA. e) The score card email was sent to the candidate (sahiljatav816@gmail.com) and parent's/guardian's email (rajendrapaliwal1653@gmail.com) email id on 2025-06-15 05:01 with a copy to NTA in BCC at SCORECARD18- NEETUG 202 5(a)NTA.A C. IN f) The score card of the aforesaid candidate was uploaded on NIC server only once. There is no change in the document since uploading. As per record available in database server, the score card of the candidate is enclosed (Score Card-250411340690.pdf). g) A QR Code is displayed on all scorecard. When scanned the QR code redirects to respective scorecard link on the examination portal. However, in the scorecard attached as Annexure P-5 on Page 26 of the Writ Petition, the QR code, when scanned, redirects to https:///maharerait.mahaonline. gov.in/ which is not the official examination portal of NEET(UG) 2025. h) The required documents of the candidate with Application Number 250411670670 are enclosed (Confirmation Page- 250411670670.pdf, AdmitCard-250411670670.pdf, Score Card 250411670670.pdf); i) The activity logs of the candidate throughout the examination lifecycle are attached (Candidate Log 250411340690.xls). A copy of the said Letter Dated 01.09.2025 of NIC along-with the Annexures, are filed herewith as Annexure -R2/6 (COLLY).” (emphasis supplied)

33. Though it is not disputed by the petitioner that the OMR sheet was displayed on the portal on 3rd June 2025 at 12.15 PM, but the petitioner has not placed on record the OMR sheet to substantiate his version, and no justification is forthcoming for the same, despite having disputed his signature on original OMR sheet that was shown to the petitioner in Court on 11.08.2025.

34. On the other hand, Mr. Khanna has again shown to the Court, the original OMR Sheet, as well as, pre-printed attendance sheet. The attendance sheet bears petitioner's signatures at two points, one appended at the time of commencement of exam and the other at its conclusion. Likewise, OMR sheet also bears petitioner's signatures. Both OMR sheet and the Attendance sheet are reproduced herein below for ready reference: PETITIONER’S SIGNATURE ON THE OMR SHEET AS PER NTA RECORDS. (ANNEXURE R2/5) PETITIONER’S SIGNATURE ON THE PREPRINTED ATTENDANCE SHEET AS PER NTA RECORDS (ANNEXURE R2/3)

35. The petitioner has relied upon following admit card which bears his admitted signatures: CANDIDATES ADMITTED SIGNATURE ON HIS ADMIT CARD (ANNEXURE P-4)

36. The petitioner has though disputed his signatures on both OMR sheet and attendance sheet, but this Court on comparing with naked eye the admitted signatures of the petitioner on the admit card (Annexure P-4) with those on the OMR sheet and attendance sheet, prima facie finds that there is resemblance in both the signatures. It is trite that normally the comparison of signatures and handwriting should be done by handwriting expert or anyone familiar with the handwriting of person concerned, but nothing preclude the court to compare the disputed signatures with admitted signatures, as this power is clearly available under Section 732 of the Indian Evidence Act[3].

37. Furthermore, a perusal of attendance sheet reveals that it contains the pre-printed roll number and application number allotted to the petitioner, as per the records of the NTA. It also shows that that the petitioner has filled the details, such as test booklet number and booklet code, in his own handwriting. The Court also notes that the photograph of petitioner is affixed on the attendance sheet and is countersigned by two invigilators. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to believe petitioner’s assertion that the signatures on the OMR sheet and the attendance sheet are not that of the petitioner.

38. The NTA is an autonomous body of Department of Higher Education under the Ministry of Education which is responsible for conducting numerous national-level exams for admission and fellowship in higher educational institutions related to engineering, medicine, management etc. The records which have been produced by the NTA thus, cannot be doubted without credible or convincing evidence, which is lacking in the present case. Besides that, there is also a presumption in favour of official records Equivalent to section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka: (1997) 7 SCC 110 under Section 1144 of the Indian Evidence Act. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision of a coordinate bench of this court in Selishia Mohandas Vs Union of India, Through its Director and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4973, wherein it was observed as under:

39. Rather, the test booklet placed on record suggests that the petitioner has tried to destroy the evidence by masking his roll number and name written on the said test booklet. Furthermore, non-placing on record the OMR sheet by the petitioner, which could have been the best evidence for purpose of ascertaining the correct answers, has also been deliberately withheld by the petitioner and no reasons for the same is forthcoming. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded with the contention that the documents which have been produced by the petitioner are genuine, and the petitioner himself is a victim of Cyber Crime.

40. In so far as the allegation of petitioner that the documents produced by the NTA have been manipulated, and it does not bear petitioner’s signatures, the same requires leading of evidence, which cannot be resorted to while exercising summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar view was taken by this court in Tanishq Mishra Vs NTA 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2482, wherein it was held as under - “20. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner does not have the response sheets to authenticate his scores, which Equivalent to section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. could perhaps have supported his version. On the other hand, digital records produced by NTA, system-generated e-mails, QR mismatch, response sheets with audit log, login details for accessing website, as maintained and authenticated by NIC, all point the case to the contrary. While petitioner may continue to assert that his documents are authentic, however, on the basis of facts and documents shown, this Court cannot come to this conclusion. The question of forgery and tampering of records can only be determined after the parties have been afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, and this exercise cannot be undertaken in the present proceedings. The petitioner has failed to prove his bona fides. The court remains unconvinced of the genuineness of the petitioner's documents. Thus, there is no basis to grant relief to the petitioner.” (Emphasis Supplied)

41. Likewise, in Vibhuti Negi Vs National testing Agency and Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4235, it was observed as under:

42. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the present case does not have any merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The pending application is also dismissed.

43. It is clarified that the opinion expressed hereinabove on the authenticity of documents produced by the petitioner is only prima facie and the petitioner is at liberty to avail any other remedy as available to him in accordance with law, if so advised.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2025/jg/dss