NEET UG re-test 2026: NTA denies OMR mix-up, calls viral answer sheet fabricated

The National Testing Agency (NTA) declared the NEET UG re-test 2026 results on July 16, 2026. A total of 11.21 lakh candidates qualified for admission to undergraduate medical, dental, AYUSH, and allied courses across the country. The results were announced on time to ensure that the medical admission and counselling process remains on schedule.

Following the declaration of the results, the NTA began receiving complaints regarding OMR sheets submitted for scrutiny that were found to be fake or AI-generated.

In response, the agency issued a statement saying it is closely monitoring and scrutinising all such complaints.

The statement read, "NTA is closely monitoring and scrutinizing all complaints. In the wake of many OMR sheets submitted for scrutiny turning out to be fake/AI-generated, students and parents are advised to submit only original OMRs for scrutiny. Any fake/AI-generated OMR may invite legal action against the complainant."

The NTA also said it has formally informed the complainant about the investigation into the OMR sheet and the findings.

IMAGE ON SOCIAL MEDIA CLAIMED OMR SHEET WAS WRONGLY UPLOADED

According to the NTA, an image of an OMR answer sheet has been circulating on social media with the claim that it was "wrongly uploaded" against the roll number of a candidate who appeared for the NEET UG re-test held on June 21, 2026.

The claim alleged that the OMR sheet carried the name of another candidate, "Ajeet Singh, son of Shri Lakhan Singh and Smt. Reena Singh," and that the candidate's own answer sheet had been interchanged or wrongly evaluated. The NTA said the claim was also amplified by a political party on social media.

The agency said it conducted a forensic examination of the circulated image and compared it with the records available with the NTA.

GENUINE OMR SHEET MATCHES OFFICIAL RECORDS

The NTA said the OMR sheet available in its records against the roll number in question is the genuine answer sheet of the concerned candidate. It carries the candidate's correct name, parents' names, signature, and thumb impression, and was evaluated through the prescribed process. The result declared on July 16, 2026, reflects that evaluation.

According to the agency, the image circulating on social media is not the OMR sheet on record but a digitally altered version of the same underlying sheet, with only the identity fields changed.

The NTA said the Test Booklet Number, answer sheet barcode, Test Booklet Code, and the shading pattern of all 180 answer bubbles in the circulated image are identical to those on the genuine sheet.

The agency noted that two different candidates cannot have identical barcodes, identical booklet numbers, and identical marking patterns across all 180 questions. It said only the identity fields had been changed.

IDENTITY USED IN CIRCULATED IMAGE DOES NOT EXIST IN DATABASE

The NTA further stated that the identity inserted into the circulated image — "Ajeet Singh, son of Shri Lakhan Singh and Smt. Reena Singh" — does not correspond to any candidate registered for NEET UG 2026.

According to the agency, a search of the complete candidate database returned no match. It said there was no mix-up of answer sheets between two candidates because no such second candidate exists.

AGENCY POINTS TO AI-BASED ALTERNATIVES

The NTA said the circulated image bears clear technical signatures of digital or AI-based document regeneration.

According to the agency:

• The genuine OMR sheet is a low-resolution institutional scan, while the circulated image is nearly six times higher in resolution.
• The colour of the answer markings has shifted from black to blue-purple.
• The thumb impression appears as a saturated block of colour without natural ridge details.

The agency also said the pre-printed portions of the circulated image contain multiple typographical distortions that cannot appear on an authentic NTA OMR sheet.

According to the NTA, these errors are significant because they occur in portions printed by the agency before the sheet reaches the candidate and therefore cannot be altered manually. The agency said these distortions are consistent with an image regenerated using AI or OCR-based tools.

Among the examples cited by the NTA are:

• The instruction at the top reads "Roll Ne" and "correctly Nilled" instead of "Roll No." and "correctly filled."
• Two of the four column headers above the answer grid read "2.No." and "G.No." instead of "Q.No."
• The printed question numbers contain irregular sequences such as "085, 086, 087, 088, 089, 080" and "126, 127, 138, 138, 138, 131."
• The candidate declaration paragraph contains nonsensical phrases such as "partic alam," "signaroen," "am uater in an Ancandance Sheet," "OFFICF Copy," and "hureby desloxa."
• Field labels also contain distortions, such as "in nunning hendwriting" instead of "in running handwriting."

NTA SAYS RESULT REMAINS UNCHANGED

The NTA said the representation received from the candidate's family was examined on merit. A written response has been sent to the family, placing the findings on record and enclosing a copy of the genuine OMR sheet.

The agency said the result remains unchanged as it is based on the candidate's genuine answer sheet. It added that the matter is being examined further and that appropriate legal action will be taken wherever warranted.

The NTA also said the genuine OMR sheet and the annotated forensic comparison are available for inspection by any responsible authority that seeks them.

Reiterating its findings, the agency said this is not a case of two candidates' OMR sheets being mixed up. Instead, it described the matter as one involving a fabricated image presented as an official NTA record.

According to the agency, the fabrication is established through multiple indicators, including the identical barcode, booklet number, and marking pattern across all 180 questions, along with the use of a fabricated identity that does not match any candidate in the NEET UG 2026 database.

The NTA further stated that it has a functioning grievance redressal mechanism and that every genuine representation is examined on merit. It said this case was also examined through the same process.