The National Testing Agency has rejected claims of discrepancies in five NEET-UG candidates’ OMR sheets. (ANI image)The National Testing Agency has rejected claims of discrepancies in five NEET-UG candidates’ OMR sheets. (ANI image)The National Testing Agency has rejected claims of discrepancies in five NEET-UG candidates’ OMR sheets. (ANI image)12 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. Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorManash Pratim GohainManash Pratim Gohain is a seasoned journalist with over two decades at The Times of India, where he has built a rich body of work spanning education policy, politics, and governance. Renowned for his incisive coverage of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, accreditation reforms, and skilling initiatives, he has also reported on student politics, urban policy, and social movements. His political reportage—both reflective and news-driven—adds depth to his writing, bridging policy with public impact. Through his 2,500 articles and related outlets, he has emerged as a trusted voice in national discourse, particularly in linking education reform to broader societal change.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosNTA Calls Viral NEET-UG OMR Sheets Fake, Warns Of Strict Legal ActionProtesters React As CJP’s ‘Chalo Sansad’ March Draws Thousands | Jantar Mantar’Women Were Beaten Like Animals’: CJP Protesters After ‘Lathi-Charge’ By RAF, Delhi PoliceCJP Claims Wangchuk’s Wife Assaulted; Amit Shah Meets Dharmendra Pradhan Amid CJP Sansad MarchJP Nadda To Meet CJP Leaders As Centre Initiates Dialogue Amid Parliament MarchSonam Wangchuk’s Latest Hunger Strike Note Shifts Focus To Accountability, Parliament AssuranceDelhi Metro Closes Five Stations, Police Block CJP’s Parliament March Amid Massive SecurityCentre To Introduce Bill Making Insult To Vande Mataram A Criminal OffenceDelhi Police Warns Against CJP’s Parliament March; Says No Permission Granted, Legal Action Likely’Strictly Prohibited’: Delhi Police Invokes Section 163, Issues Warning Over CJP’s Sansad March123PhotostoriesFrom having no work for three years after quitting Sasural Simar Ka to wife Dipika Kakar supporting him financially; When Shoaib Ibrahim spoke about his struggles, career and lifeThere are four strains of dengue, and recovering from one doesn’t protect you from the others: Is a single vaccine enough?Weekly Tarot Predictions from July 20 to July 26, 2026 for your birth dateLoved ‘The Odyssey’? Here are the best movies adapted from great epics that deserve a spot on your watchlist5 purple animals from around the world that prove nature loves every colourKatrina Kaif skips the bling and still wins best-dressed in Rs 24K birthday looks7 air-fryer egg dishes for a protein-rich dinnerBest time travel web series to watch: ‘Dark’, ‘Outlander’, ’12 Monkeys’ and more sci-fi masterpiecesWhy are some wine bottles sealed with corkBTS set the FIFA 2026 World Cup halftime stage on fire with red devils-inspired fashion123Hot PicksSylvester StalloneSteve JobsUS import pricesClint EastwoodDelhi Metro stationsJantar MantarKylie JennersCJP Parliament marchNHL Trade RumorsTop TrendingRajasthan RapeLucknow Jawahar Bhawan FireWeather TomorrowCJP ProtestSonam WangchukNEET Paper LeakJoseph VijayAbhishek BanerjeeIshowspeedIran war
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.
