NEET-UG leak case: fast-track court pushes pace as judge weighs deferral plea

A Delhi court has been moving at an unusually brisk pace through the NEET-UG examination paper leak case, with the presiding judge repeatedly telling lawyers that delay cannot be afforded in a matter that has drawn nationwide attention.

Judge Ajay Gupta of the Fast Track Special Court at Rouse Avenue has been hearing the case against 13 accused since taking charge on August 4. Each working day he begins at 10 am, working through chargesheet scrutiny, preliminary arguments and a series of interim applications, while pressing counsel to appear on time.

The latest test of that schedule came on Monday, when an accused sought to postpone arguments on charge on the ground that the investigation was still continuing. "Time is very precious... We can continue the hearing all day if necessary," the judge told the defence, according to the proceedings. The hearing ran for nearly two hours.

The case has unfolded amid public anger over examination paper leaks, which intensified after the NEET-UG leak came to light. The exam was held on May 3 with about 22 lakh candidates, and was cancelled nine days later by the National Testing Agency after the leak surfaced. A retest followed on June 21. On July 23, after a month-long student protest at Jantar Mantar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the creation of fast-track courts to deliver swift and stringent punishment in exam fraud cases.

In this case, the CBI filed a chargesheet naming 13 accused on July 28. The judge took cognizance on August 12, and two days later allowed an agency application seeking permission for further investigation. The CBI has alleged that the paper was initially leaked by three NTA panel members and translators, and that hotel premises were used in April to facilitate access to the leaked papers, which were then circulated on Telegram.

Arguments on charge — the stage at which the agency must show a prima facie case before trial begins — started in the first week of September, with document scrutiny completed within two weeks. The CBI concluded its arguments on September 6; six of the 13 accused argued on September 8, and the remaining accused over the next two days. An order dated September 14 recorded that arguments had been heard at length for the agency and for all accused except Accused No. 5.

On Monday, that accused, Shivraj Raghunath Motegaonkar, represented by advocate Ashneet Singh, argued that arguments on charge should be halted until a supplementary chargesheet is filed. Motegaonkar runs Renukai Chemistry Classes in Maharashtra's Latur, and the CBI has said a phone allegedly seized from him contained 136 handwritten questions, of which 111 matched the NTA's master question sets. The agency, represented by Senior PP V K Pathak and PP Arjun Anand, contended that there is no legal bar on hearing arguments on charge before a supplementary chargesheet is filed.

Reserving his order for Wednesday, the judge observed that he also has other cases to handle and that a Delhi High Court notification had been issued. The order is under dictation and is to be pronounced on Friday.

This is not the first time the judge has pushed for speed. Early in his tenure he rebuked defence counsel for arriving late, telling them that every minute was important and that they should be present at 10 am sharp. He has also decided several miscellaneous applications within days of filing, including pleas for a lie detector test, spectacles and religious books in custody, virtual meetings with family, and more time to inspect documents.

Most recently, he rejected an accused's request for more time to file a discharge application. In a September 7 order, he noted that the accused had already had sufficient time and that the application appeared intended to drag or delay the trial. In the same order, he said arguments on charge could have begun on August 13, a day after cognizance of the chargesheet, but were deferred because some accused had moved applications relating to document scrutiny.

The judge has also been designated to hear other paper-leak cases under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act pending in Delhi's district courts. Two cases from Karkardooma court have been transferred to him and one from Dwarka is expected to follow, taking his tally to four. Those cases relate to recruitment exams held in Delhi for school staff and Lower Division Clerks.