Top News

Meanwhile, a protest is ongoing at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar against the NEET UG paper leak.

Special CBI judge Ajay Gupta approved the CBI’s application after considering their submission that the documents for comparison by the Forensic Lab were extensive. The Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) had indicated that the handwriting and signature specimens obtained previously were insufficient. Consequently, the court allowed the CBI to obtain further handwriting and signature samples from Manisha Sanjay Hawaldar in jail.

The court instructed the Jail Superintendent to arrange for the collection of handwriting and signature specimens from the accused over a period of three days, from July 27, 2026, to July 29, 2026, in the presence of an independent witness.

Senior Public Prosecutor Neetu Singh stated that Manisha Sanjay Hawaldar was involved in the NEET UG 2026 question paper leak case by sharing her handwritten physics questions with Manisha Mandhare. The prosecution added that she dictated physics questions to another accused, Tejas Harshad Kumar Shah. Handwritten images containing physics question notes were recovered from Mandhare’s phone during the investigation.

The CBI also noted that permission to obtain handwriting specimens had been previously granted on May 30, 2026; however, due to the volume of case records and to ensure a fair comparison and investigation, further specimens were necessary.

The defense counsel for Manisha Sanjay Hawaldar opposed the CBI’s submissions, arguing that the agency failed to specify why additional handwriting samples were required. The counsel highlighted that previously, around 60 pages had been written by the accused, and the CBI had not explained why those pages were insufficient for comparison.

CBI counsel acknowledged that Manisha Sanjay Hawaldar is a senior citizen and that the process could cause her further harassment. It was also noted that the accused had cooperated fully during the investigation and had written all requested samples. The counsel argued that repeated specimen collection should not be imposed to compensate for investigative omissions.