NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India deferred the hearing related to the NEET PG 2024 examination case due to the absence of government counsel, scheduled for today. Initially scheduled for September 27, the hearing is now likely to take place on October 4. The case involves a plea filed by a group of NEET PG aspirants who have raised concerns about the examination pattern, particularly due to last-minute changes introduced by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS).
The Plea comes after students voiced concerns over NEET PG 2024 exam pattern
The plea, led by Ishika Jain and others, challenges several aspects of the NEET PG 2024 examination, including the disclosure of answer keys and question papers, as well as the standardization of marks. One of the primary issues raised by the petitioners revolves around the change in the exam format. For the first time, the NEET PG exam was conducted in two shifts instead of the traditional single-shift format. The aspirants argue that this change disrupted the exam’s transparency and fairness. To address concerns about variation in difficulty between shifts, the NBEMS implemented a normalization process, which the petitioners argue has not been fully explained.
The petitioners are calling for more transparency in the process, demanding the release of the question papers and answer keys for both shifts. The petitioners’ legal representatives, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija and Advocate Tanvi Dubey, argued that these changes were made without sufficient notice or clarity. Makhija stated that “there needs to be a standardised approach” to conducting such significant examinations. According to her, the NBEMS did not establish formal regulations, leaving the entire process dependent on a single information bulletin that could be modified unexpectedly.
The Supreme Court’s response on unusual timing of changes
During the initial hearing, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, who presided over a three-judge bench, expressed surprise over the timing of the changes. Referring to the modifications made just three days before the exam, the CJI remarked, “It is very unusual… students will have a meltdown.” The Bench further questioned the NBEMS’s decision to introduce such last-minute changes, with the CJI directly asking, “How can you do all this?”
The government counsel representing the NBEMS attempted to downplay the modifications, stating that nothing unusual or unprecedented had been done. However, this explanation did not satisfy the court, which insisted on further review.
Why are students concerned over NEET PG 2024 results?
The NEET PG 2024 examination is a crucial test for medical students seeking admission to postgraduate courses in medicine and dentistry (MBBS and BDS). The exam, conducted by the NBEMS, plays a key role in determining the career paths of thousands of aspiring doctors.
This year’s NEET PG results, announced on August 23, sparked widespread concern among students. Many reported unexpectedly low rankings, fueling suspicions that the new two-shift exam format and the normalization process may have adversely affected their scores. Previously, the NEET PG exam had been conducted in a single session. The decision to split the exam into two shifts, coupled with the lack of a clear explanation regarding the normalization process, has led to frustration and demands for clarity.
The petitioners contend that the new format introduced unnecessary complications and lacked transparency. This, combined with the late introduction of the changes, left students feeling anxious and unsure of how their performance was being evaluated.
What lies ahead
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case on October 4, NEET PG aspirants await a resolution that will address their concerns about fairness and transparency. The case has drawn attention to the need for a more structured and consistent approach to the administration of high-stakes exams like NEET PG. The hearing will now focus on the legitimacy of the changes made by NBEMS and whether the normalisation process used in the two-shift exam was properly explained and justified.
