The Supreme Court docket is ready to listen to on September 21 whether or not different strategies of verification of id can be utilized in a plea by a specifically abled NEET candidate.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan(for petitioner) on the interim reduction on whether or not the petitioner will be allowed to seem for the examination utilizing different proof of id.
It might be on April 30, days earlier than the NEET-UG 2026 examination, the Nationwide Testing Company gave an endeavor to the Supreme Court docket that Petitioner may seem at her examination centre with an alternate proof of id, licensed by the Sub-Divisional Justice of the Peace or by the Principal of the college she final attended.
On the power of that endeavor, the Court docket disposed of her utility for interim instructions.
Nevertheless, it has stored the bigger problem concerning different strategies of verification of id pending and has requested the senior counsel to help the Court docket.
It ordered: “We request Mr. Gopal Shankaranarayanan, realized senior counsel to help us within the matter as essential points come up for consideration within the current petition. Listing on 21.09.2026.”
Muazzama Tanveer, the petitioner, is having a situation specifically, Adermatoglyphia, during which the pores and skin ridges by no means develop that types fingerprint. It has no bearing on her well being, intelligence or means, it solely defeats programs of identification that rely upon scanning a fingerprint.
As per the petition, that grew to become a severe sensible downside when she appeared for NEET-UG 2025, the nationwide medical entrance examination, on 4 Might 2025. Her examination centre had no method of verifying her id apart from a biometric fingerprint scanner, which couldn’t learn her fingers. She reported on time however was permitted to enter the examination corridor solely after a delay of roughly half-hour, and was given no extra time to make up for it.
The misplaced time instructed immediately on her outcome, she scored 321 out of 720, a outcome that didn’t safe her a seat in any authorities medical school, however a robust educational report.
She challenged this earlier than the Allahabad Excessive Court docket, searching for a contemporary examination and a route to the involved authorities to undertake an alternate technique of id verification for candidates in her place. The Excessive Court docket dismissed the petition on 26 November 2025. She then approached the Supreme Court docket, which issued discover.
Case Particulars: MUAZZAMA TANVEER v UNION OF INDIA & ORS|Particular Depart to Attraction (C) No(s). 2737/2026
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dawneesh Shaktivats, AOR Mr. Mohd Yasin, Adv. Ms. Swati Khanna, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Pradyut Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Aman Sabir Saifi, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Mehta, Adv. Ms. Nikita Arora, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Khera, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Varun Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Atreya Gc, Adv. Mr. Mukul, Adv
