NEET UG 2026: The National Testing Agency (NTA) has dismissed a viral claim alleging that a NEET UG 2026 candidate's OMR answer sheet has been swapped, stating that the image circulating on social media was a digitally fabricated document creating using AI or OCR- based tools.
In a statement posted on X on Monday, the agency clarified that the original OMR answer sheet of candidate Avaneesh Srivastava (Application No. 260411198880, Roll No. 2001805051) remains on record and was correctly evaluated. The agency also issued a detailed public notice warning that creating, submitting or circulating forged OMR sheets or scorecards constitutes a criminal offence under the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
NTA says viral OMR image was digitally altered
According to the agency, the genuine OMR sheet bears the candidate's correct personal details, including his name, his parents' names, signature, thumb impression and invigilators' signatures. It added that the scanned copy has also been emailed to the candidate during the OMR response key challenge window.
However, the image circulating online was found to be a fabricated version of the original document.
"The identity inserted into that image does not correspond to any candidate registered for NEET (UG) 2026" the agency said, adding that the names "Ajeet Singh", along with the parent details shown in the viral image, do not exist in the NEET UG 2026 database.
NTA further stated that the printed portions of the sheet had been digitally regenerated using AI or OCR-based tools, resulting in visible distortions in sections that are pre-printed by the agency and cannot be modified by candidates manaually.
Candidate's score remains unchanged
The examination body said the candidate's original OMR sheet had been evaluated correctly and the declared score of 337 marks was verified.
It categorically stated that there was no error in evaluation and that the result would remain unchanged.
NTA also addresses four other cases
Apart from Avaneesh Srivastava's case, the NTA said it had also examined representations relating to Pratibha Trivedi, Abhay Yadav, Lakshya Singh and Arya Singh. According to the agency, the allegations made in these cases were also found to be unsupported after verification of official records. NTA maintained that the genuine OMR answer sheets and score records of all the candidates were available with the agency, had been evaluated correctly in accordance with the official answer key, and that no evidence of OMR sheet interchange or tampering was found. The agency reiterated that any fabricated or AI-generated documents submitted in support of such claims would attract legal action under the applicable laws.
Several complaints received after NEET UG result
In its public notice dated July 20, the NTA said it has received multiple representations following the declaration of the NEET UG 2026 results on July 16. Several candidates or individuals claiming to represent them alleged that the OMR sheets uploaded against their roll numbers had been interchanged or displayed fewer marked responses than what they had attempted.
Many of these complaints were accompanied by images claimed to be the "correct" OMR sheet or revised scorecard, with requests for re-evaluation.
After examining every such representation, the agency said it found that the official records consistently matched the genuine OMR sheets, while the documents submitted with complaints were fabricated.
Common methods of forgery identified
The agency listed several patterns observed in the forged documents submitted for verification. These include:
AI-generated regeneration of the printed portions of OMR sheets, resulting in typographical distortions.
Digital replacement of candidate identity details while retaining the original barcode, booklet number and answer markings.
Alteration of marks or response counts on downloaded scorecards without changing the embedded QR code or barcode.
Use of fictitious candidate names and parent details that do not exist in the NEET UG 2026 database.
NTA said every genuine examination document carries unique identifiers such as barcodes, answer sheet numbers, booklet numbers and QR codes, all of which correspond to records stored securely on the servers of the agency and the National Informatics Centre (NIC). While a fabricated image may appear convincing, it cannot alter the official record, the agency said.
Legal action against candidates and third parties
The agency warned candidates, parents, coaching institutes and consultants against using fabricated examination documents for any purpose, including seeking re-evaluation, admission or amplifying grievances on social media.
According to the notice, creating, possessing, submitting or circulating forged, digitally altered or AI-generated OMR sheets, scorecards or other public examination documents is a cognisable offence under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. It may also attract action under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act.
Those found guilty could face imprisonment, monetary penalties, cancellation of candidature and debarment from future examinations conducted by the NTA.
The agency also said it may initiate legal proceedings not only against candidates submitting forged documents but also against any third party involved in creating, supplying or circulating such fabricated material.
NTA asks candidates to use official grievance process
While issuing the warning, the NTA clarified that genuine grievances would continue to be examined through the prescribed mechanism.
Candidates who believe there is an actual discrepancy in their OMR sheet have been advised to submit representations through the official helpdesk, quoting their application number, roll number and the specific issue. However, the agency cautioned candidates against attaching any document that was not issued or downloaded from the official NTA portal.
The agency added that any complaint supported by fabricated documents would invite legal action, irrespective of whether the candidate claims to have been misled by a third party. Candidates in such cases are expected to cooperate with the investigation and disclose the identity of those responsible for preparing or circulating the forged material.
