Xplorich
NEW DELHI: The National Testing Agency on Monday publicly rebutted the claims of five NEET-UG candidates alleging discrepancies in their OMR answer sheets, saying the images circulated by or on their behalf had been digitally altered, regenerated using AI or manipulated by adding responses that were not present on the original sheets.The detailed case-wise clarification came a day after TOI reported that NTA had, for the first time, detected AI-generated OMR sheets among complaints challenging NEET-UG 2026 results. The agency had said no error in the declared results had been established so far and warned that candidates using fabricated records could face cancellation of candidature, debarment and criminal proceedings.The results were declared on July 16 after the June 21 re-examination, ordered following the cancellation of the original May test over a question-paper leak. Several candidates and parents had alleged that uploaded OMR sheets were interchanged or showed fewer attempted answers than claimed.In the case of Avaneesh Srivastava, NTA said the genuine OMR bearing his name, parents’ names, signature, thumb impression and invigilators’ signatures was on record and had also been emailed to him during the response-key challenge window. It said the circulated image carried the identity of “Ajeet Singh”, a person with the stated parentage who did not exist in the NEET-UG 2026 database. According to the agency, the printed portion had been regenerated through AI- or OCR-based tools and the identity fields overwritten. Srivastava’s score of 337 was verified, it said.NTA similarly rejected Pratibha Trivedi’s claim, saying the circulated image was a significantly altered version of her genuine OMR and her score of 38 stood. In Abhay Yadav’s case, the agency said his public claim that he had left only five questions unanswered was contradicted by the official OMR, which showed 44 unattempted questions. His score of 164 was verified.For Lakshya Singh, NTA said additional answer bubbles had been digitally shaded on the circulated image. The genuine sheet showed 54 attempts — 34 correct and 20 incorrect — with 126 questions unattempted, resulting in 116 marks. In Arya Singh’s case, it said the invigilator’s signing time had been altered from 3.45pm to 2.45pm, along with other digital changes. Her score of 167 stood.In a public notice, NTA said genuine examination documents carry barcodes, booklet and answer-sheet numbers and, in scorecards, QR codes linked to authoritative server records. “A fabricated image may deceive the eye, but it does not, and cannot, alter the record on those servers,” it said.The agency said forged OMRs or scorecards could attract action under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. It, however, said candidates could continue to raise genuine grievances through the prescribed channel.
