0
0
A major controversy has erupted over the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences’ (NBEMS) decision to conduct the NEET-PG 2025 in two shifts, with thousands of medical aspirants launching a mass signature campaign to counter the board’s claim that opposition to the new format is limited to a handful of petitioners. The move comes amid ongoing legal battles and widespread criticism from students and medical associations across India.
Background: Legal Challenges and Board’s Stance
Multiple cases have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging both the transparency of NBEMS and the two-shift format for NEET-PG. The most recent, Dr Aditi v National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences, was filed on April 29, 2025, and heard alongside a related petition by the United Doctors’ Front (UDF). Both petitions highlight persistent concerns about fairness and transparency since the two-shift system was introduced.
In its response to the UDF petition, NBEMS argued that postponing the June 15 examination would disrupt the academic calendar and delay the entry of new postgraduate residents into India’s already strained healthcare system. The board also maintained that releasing question papers and answer keys would not be in the public interest, citing the specialized nature of the exam1.
Most controversially, NBEMS questioned whether the petitioners truly represent the broader student community, claiming that opposition is limited to “a few petitioners” and not reflective of the majority of NEET-PG aspirants.
Student Response: Mass Signature Campaign Gains Momentum
In reaction to these claims, Dr Aditi and other student activists have launched a Google Form-based signature campaign, urging aspirants to sign in large numbers to demonstrate widespread opposition. Dr Aditi told EdexLive that the campaign has already garnered over 6,000 signatures and continues to grow.
She emphasized that the low number of petitioners is due to the complexity and fear of legal proceedings, not a lack of concern among students. “It is quite unfair to say that if there are only 7 petitioners to the case, it does not have any substantial value. People are largely affected, which is noted by these medical associations, which have huge numbers of doctors and NEET-PG aspirants as their members,” she stated.
Wider Opposition and Demands for Transparency
The two-shift format has faced criticism for potentially introducing disparities in question difficulty and undermining fairness, despite the implementation of a normalization formula. Critics argue that the normalization process remains opaque and flawed, with past candidates alleging that the second shift was significantly tougher than the first.
Recent online polls reinforce the scale of opposition: Over 89% of respondents said “No” to the two-shift format, with only 9% in support and 2% undecided. Medical associations and student bodies have repeatedly called for a return to a single-shift exam to ensure equal opportunity for all aspirants.
Supreme Court Advocate Abhisht Hela, representing Dr Aditi, dismissed NBEMS’s argument about the number of petitioners as irrelevant, citing Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the rights of even a single individual seeking justice. Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, representing the UDF, also criticized the board’s stance, noting that the association represents over 2.5 lakh aspirants and that the recurring legal challenges highlight systemic issues.
What’s Next?
With the Supreme Court’s summer vacation approaching, students and their advocates are pushing for urgent intervention to ensure transparency and fairness in the NEET-PG selection process. The outcome of these petitions could have significant implications for the future conduct of high-stakes medical entrance exams in India.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on information available as of May 20, 2025, and references ongoing legal proceedings and student-led campaigns. The situation is evolving, and official positions or outcomes may change as new developments arise. Readers are encouraged to consult official NBEMS communications and court updates for the latest information.
Citations:
