Pinnacle court struck down the Plea asking removal of a question in physics due to error in hindi translation paper

The top court today dismissed a writ petition requesting removal  of a question in the Physics section, alleging translation glitch. The Centre informed the top court that a three-member panel constituted could not find any discrepancy in the question asked.

The plea was heard by a three-judge bench that comprises Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Vikram Nath.

The plea filed by 22 candidates had contended that there was a patent error in question number 2 of the Hindi version of Physics paper in which the words 'amplitude of the current' were missing.

The writ petition was filed by NEET candidates challenging the "discrepancy and patent error" in Question No 2 of Section A (Physics) wherein while translating the same from English to Hindi, the word "amplitude of current" has been omitted. According to the petitioners, the Hindi word "dhaara" used in the question does not refer to "amplitude". On the last hearing date, November 25, the Solicitor General had told the bench that the issue was examined by three neutral experts, who said that the answer would be the same irrespective of the alleged discrepancy.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the NTA, submitted that the expert committee after examining the issue, came to the unanimous conclusion that the answer will remain the same whether the exam is taken in Hindi or English.

"We had constituted a committee of three experts, one from IIT Guwahati, one from IIT Delhi and another expert. All three have concurred that whether we take English or Hindi, the answer remains the same," he submitted.

"I don't like succeeding against students. But in this case experts have opined," he added.

The Court agreed with the SG, stating that the Court cannot interfere once experts have given an opinion.

"When experts have opined then there is no reason for us to interfere. We could have at least seen it, if it was a law paper. We have to draw the line that is not our remit at all," Justice Chandrachud remarked.

The Court therefore proceeded to dismiss the plea.