NEET PG 2025: Two Shifts Will Lead to arbitrariness, Arrange Single-shift exam- SC tells NBE

What Happened in the NEET PG Hearing Today?

During the hearing of the matter today, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the candidates get to choose their streams based on this exam and the rank they secure in the test. It was argued by the counsel that even a one mark difference decides whether a candidate gets their preferred stream- radiology, gynaecology, etc.

When the bench sought to know why the exam is being conducted in two shifts, Senior Advocate Maninder Acharya informed the bench that the NEET PG exam is held online, and last year, the NEET UG exam had to be cancelled due to malpractice. He argued that for online exams, there is a limited number of centres and therefore, all important exams in which a large number of candidates appear are held in these.

Taking note of this, Justice Nath remarked that the number of candidates is higher for the undergraduate exam. In response, Advocate Acharya informed that even for the NEET PG exam, there are a limited number of centres as good infrastructure is required- having Wi-Fi, good computers, safety and security, etc. He argued that after considering all possible problems, this solution has been given. Further, Advocate Acharya argued that there is no prejudice that is being caused to the candidates.

In response, Justice Nath remarked, "..how can it stay the same? There are different question papers. They can never be the same."

Responding to the bench's concern, Advocate Acharya informed the bench that the appropriate difficulty level of both shifts is kept the same, and after that, there is normalisation. Therefore, even if there is a slight difference between difficulty levels, the marks are normalised.

Advocate Acharya further pointed out that the exam is fixed on June 15 and all the arrangements have already been made, and therefore, if there is a stay from the Supreme Court, the schedule for PG medical admissions, fixed by the Apex Court, will be affected and the whole session will be interrupted. Advocate Acharya further argued that ultimately, it is the candidates who will suffer because the session will not start on time.

On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner argued that organisations like TCS are equipped to provide the centres.

However, Advocate Acharya insisted that if the exam is held in one shift at this stage, it will become very chaotic ,and it will not be possible to hold the exam on the schedule. He further claimed that only a few candidates out of the 2 lakh 50 thousand students have a problem with the double shift exam. Advocate Acharya questioned if the double shift exam is so prejudicial and arbitrary, why are not more students challenging i?.

When the petitioners' counsel pointed out that NEET UG exam with so many candidates is conducted in one session, Advocate Acharya pointed out that it is a handwritten exam.

"We will do a handwritten exam," remarked the bench.

Justice Nath Questioned, "why can't you do it straight forward why do you need an online exam?"

"why do you need an online exam? it is just a multiple choice question exam," remarked Justice Sanjay Kumar.

In response, Advocate Acharya informed that they wanted to hold an online exam to avoid human intervention. Counsel for the respondent informed the bench that in the online method, it is the computer that checks the paper.

"you find a solution for conducting it offline," the bench remarked at this outset.

However, Advocate Acharya informed the bench that the process started in March and now it will get delayed and the entire session will be disrupted.

At this outset, Justice Nath observed, "don't give such threats that whole year will go. what is this?"

In response, Advocate Acharya explained that it was not a threat and submitted to the bench that only 15 days were left and therefore the entire process get delayed. He further argued that a few students will delay the process for everybody and not everybody is aggrieved.

Counsel for the respondent informed the bench that they will have to identify 900 more centres.

Justice Nath, however, observed, "you can never say that the two shifts are identical."

Responding to the Court's observation, Advocate Acharya submitted that the normalization process will address this and further claimed that there are a huge number of exams in which the normalization process is followed.

At this outset, Justice Kumar asked, "isn't normalization and allocation of shifts human intervention?"

However, Advocate Acharya claimed that the normalisation process is completely random and entirely computerised. He further claimed that there was nothing unique about this exam as this is followed in exams like CAT, JEE, CUET, Railways etc.

Justice Kumar, however, opined that "by now you should have come up with a solution. You can't just say that we did this way last year."

When Advocate Acharya submitted that getting 900 centres with requisite infrastructure, uninterrupted Wi-Fi, security will be very difficult, Justic Nath questioned, "why didn't you do this before? The process started in March. This cannot be accepted"

Advocate Acharya kept insisting that even if there is slight different level of difficulty, there is normalisation process to address it.

"why have normalisation at all? The candidates will get two different difficulty levels," remarked Justice Nath.

When Advocate Acharya argued that the difference is not too much and relied on the JEE exam, where there are 10 shifts, the bench sought to know, "But what is the number?"

Answering the question, Advocate Acharya informed the bench that 10 lakh candidates are there for JEE and argued that that is why there are only 2 shifts in NEET PG exam. He argued that multiple shifts for 10 lakh candidates and 2 shifts for 2.5 lakh candidates.

When the petitioners' counsel argued that this will reward luck, Advocate Acharya claimed that this has absolutely no basis. He also contended that the Supreme Court has set the timeline for the exam and only a few candidates are before the Supreme Court.

However, Justice Kumar remarked, "even if there is just one candidate with a redressable grievance court has to interfere. It does not matter the number of candidates who have come here."

Accordingly, the bench ordered that holding the exam in two shifts leads to arbitrariness as the question papers in two shifts can never be of the same difficulty level. It also noted that while the exam might had been conducted in two shifts last year due to circumstances of that state, the examining body should have considered making arrangements for holding the exam in one shift now.

The bench noted that two grounds were cited for holding the exam in two shifts-

(a) The number of candidates is huge and it is difficult to find secure centres to hold the exam in one shift.

(b) If the exam is held in a single shift, malpractice could be involved.

Addressing these, the bench denied to accept that in the entire country and considering the technological advancement here, the examining body could not find enough centers to hold the exam in one shift. It also observed that while normalisation may be applied in exceptional cases, it cannot be applied in a routine manner year after year

Noting that there is still more than 2 weeks of time for NBE to identify the centers to hold the exam in one shift, the bench ordered, "we accordingly direct that the respondents ensure to make further arrangements for holding the examination in one ship and also ensure that full transparency is maintained and secured centres are identified."

The bench also addressed another argument made by the respondents that even if the examination body identifies more centres, it may need more time which may result into delay in holding the exam and all consequent counselling and admission schedule fixed by the Apex Court.

However, the bench observed, "the argument is also not accepted. There is still sufficient time for the body to identify the centres."

When Advocate Acharya informed the bench about issues with identifying the centres in time, the bench remarked, "then you apply for extension."

The bench also questioned why the authorities did not look for enough centres and further ordered, "it will be open for the respondents to apply for extension of time every find that they are not able to identify the centres and conduct the examination on 15th June."

Addressing the other grievance regarding NBE's refusal to provide answer sheets and question papers despite court orders, the bench observed, "We are not examining that question at this stage."

In this regard, the bench clarified that the issue related to the second relief claim would be considered after the examinations are concluded.