NEET PG 2025: Supreme Court Issues Notices To NBE, NMC And MoHFW Over Two-Shift Exam Format; Aspirants Demand Transparency

Mumbai: The Supreme Court has issued notices to the National Board of Examinations (NBE), the National Medical Commission (NMC), and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), seeking their response to two separate petitions challenging the two-shift format proposed for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025.

The court’s move comes after growing concerns from aspirants and experts over the fairness and transparency of conducting the postgraduate medical entrance exam in multiple shifts—a system first introduced in 2024 and widely criticised.

“The system failed in 2024 and remains unreformed,” said Brijesh Sutaria, a Mumbai-based medical education activist. “We appeal to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to give these matters the urgent attention they deserve. The voices of future doctors—the backbone of India’s healthcare system—must not be silenced and ignored again.”

The two petitions — filed by UDF, and Dr Aditi Gupta and six other doctors — raise alarm over the use of different question papers in each shift and an opaque score normalisation process. Petitioners argue that the lack of transparency and inconsistent evaluation standards threaten the integrity of one of India’s most important medical entrance examinations.

Sudha Shenoy, a parent-representative, said, “The National Testing Agency (NTA) should ensure that NEET PG 2025 is conducted in one shift. At this point, they might argue that increasing the number of centres is difficult, but they still have a month. The court must hold the NTA accountable so that students’ trust in the examination process is restored.”

The controversy dates back to 2024, when the NEET PG was, for the first time, conducted in two shifts. While the NTA cited security concerns linked to undergraduate paper leaks last year as the reason for the change, candidates raised objections to the lack of transparency. Individual scores were not disclosed, and the methodology used for normalisation was not explained, leading to widespread dissatisfaction.