NTA rebuts claims of 5, says NEET-UG OMR sheets forged

NEW DELHI The National Testing Agency Monday publicly rebutted claims of five NEET-UG candidates alleging discrepancies in their OMR answer sheets, saying 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 case-wise clarification came a day after TOI reported the agency had, for the first time, detected AI-generated OMR sheets among complaints challenging the NEET-UG 2026 results. NTA had said no error in the 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 retest, ordered following the cancellation of the original May test over a question paper leak. Several candidates 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 details 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. It added the printed portion had been regenerated through AI- or OCR-based tools. Srivastava’s score of 337 was verified.Similarly, rejecting Pratibha Trivedi’s claim, NTA said the circulated image was an altered version of her genuine OMR, and her score of 38 stood. In Abhay Yadav’s case, NTA 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, it said additional answer bubbles had been digitally shaded on the circulated image. The genuine sheet showed 54 attempts – 34 correct and 20 incorrect – resulting in 116 marks. In Arya Singh’s case, it said the invigilator’s signing time had been altered, along with other digital changes. Her score of 167 stood. The agency said forged OMRs or scorecards could attract action under Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, BNS and IT Act.