On Friday, in a judicial directive carrying implications for the administration of postgraduate medical entrance examinations, the Supreme Court restrained the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) from proceeding with the proposed two-shift schedule for NEET-PG 2025. The Court ordered that the examination, slated for June 15, be conducted in a single shift, citing concerns regarding fairness, arbitrariness, and constitutional guarantees of equality.
The matter originated from a batch of writ petitions challenging a notification issued by the NBEMS for conducting NEET-PG 2025 in two separate shifts. The petitioners, comprising aspirants for the postgraduate medical entrance examination, contended that the proposed structure would lead to discriminatory outcomes owing to inevitable variations in question paper difficulty between shifts.
The NEET-PG, an online, rank-based entrance test administered by NBEMS, had been scheduled to be held on June 15, 2025, in two time slots. The examining body cited infrastructural and logistical constraints, specifically, the limited availability of secure computer-based test centres, as the rationale behind its two-shift decision.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bifurcated shift model introduces elements of chance and arbitrariness, thereby infringing Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They argued that the variation in the difficulty levels of different question papers, even after score normalisation, renders the selection process unfair and non-transparent.
Senior Advocate Maninder Acharya, representing NBEMS, defended the two-shift model on logistical grounds, citing infrastructural deficiencies such as internet connectivity, secure hardware, and invigilation systems. She maintained that “only a handful” of aspirants had approached the Court and asserted that score normalisation mechanisms were in place to ensure parity.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice N.V. Anjaria rejected the respondent’s justification and expressed strong disapproval of the two-shift arrangement. The Court observed that “holding examination in two shifts creates arbitrariness and also does not keep all the candidates at the same level. Any two question papers can never be said to be of an identical level of difficulty or ease. There has to be a variation.”
On the issue of normalisation, the Court noted: “Normalisation may be applied in exceptional cases but not in a routine manner year after year.”
Responding to the NBE’s plea regarding infrastructural limitations, the Bench stated: “We are not ready to accept that in entire country and considering the technological advancements in this country, the examining body could not find enough centres to hold the examination and one shift.”
On the issue of limited litigation reflecting general acceptance of the two-shift format, the Court clarified: “Even if one student who has a legitimate grievance, the Court will interfere.”
The Court directed the NBEMS to take immediate steps to organise the NEET-PG 2025 examination in a single shift. The order stated: “We accordingly direct the respondents to make further arrangements for holding the examination in one shift and also ensure that full transparency is maintained and secured centres are identified.”
Acknowledging the time constraints, the Bench allowed for procedural flexibility: “It will be open for the respondents to apply for extension of time if they find that they are not able to identify the centres and conduct the examination on 15th June.”
The Court deferred consideration of the remaining issue concerning the disclosure of question papers and answer keys to July 14, post the conduct of the examination.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :