Archive · 31 Aug 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds NEET Score, Imposes ₹25,000 Costs
A student believed her NEET score was much lower than it should have been.
She thought she would get about 680 marks, but the testing agency gave her 160.
She asked the Bombay High Court to check her answer sheet.
The court allowed her to inspect the original OMR sheet.
After seeing it, she accepted that the 160 marks were correct.
The court said that her claim was incorrect and that the case had required official resources.
It dismissed her petition.
Because of how the case was pursued, the court ordered her mother to pay ₹25,000.
The Nagpur Bench dismissed a 17-year-old NEET aspirant’s challenge to her 160/720 score.
The student had expected approximately 680 marks after comparing her answers with the answer key.
She was allowed to inspect her original OMR answer sheet during the proceedings.
After inspection, her counsel informed the court that the 160-mark score was correct.
The court imposed ₹25,000 in costs, payable by her mother within four weeks.
- Who
- The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, the National Testing Agency, and 17-year-old NEET aspirant Shrishti Shantibodh Mishra.
- What
- The court dismissed Mishra’s petition challenging her NEET-UG score of 160 out of 720 and imposed ₹25,000 in costs.
- When
- The judgment was dated August 24, 2026; the challenged scorecard was dated July 16, 2026, and an additional affidavit was filed on August 7.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
- Why
- Inspection of the original OMR answer sheet showed that the 160-mark score was correct, leaving no dispute for the court to decide.
Petitioner’s Position
Respondents’ and Court’s Position
Accuracy of the NEET score
Petitioner’s Position
The student initially argued that the 160/720 score was arbitrary and did not reflect the responses marked on her OMR sheet; based on her answer-key comparison, she expected about 680 marks.
Respondents’ and Court’s Position
The National Testing Agency’s score was confirmed when the original OMR sheet was physically inspected, after which the student accepted that 160/720 was correct.
Basis for the legal challenge
Petitioner’s Position
The student sought production, verification, and re-tallying of the original physical OMR answer sheet.
Respondents’ and Court’s Position
The respondents argued that the allegations against the NTA were unfounded, and the court concluded that no dispute survived after the inspection.
Costs imposed
Petitioner’s Position
The petitioner’s case involved a student, and the court considered her interests when deciding the amount.
Respondents’ and Court’s Position
The court described her conduct as blameworthy, said it would otherwise have imposed ₹50,000, and reduced the amount to ₹25,000 because she was a student.
- Petitioner
- Shrishti Shantibodh Mishra, a 17-year-old aspiring to study MBBS
- Exam
- NEET-UG 2026
- Score awarded
- 160 out of 720
- Score expected by petitioner
- Approximately 680 out of 720
- Responding agency
- National Testing Agency (NTA)
- Costs
- ₹25,000
- Payment deadline
- Within four weeks, by the petitioner’s natural guardian mother
- Payment destination
- Public Welfare Account at Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur
