NEET-PG 2025 Controversy & Article 14: Supreme Court Tackles Two-Shift Exam Fairness Under Indian Constitution

The Starting Point

The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025, which is an important test for medical graduates in India, has been the focal point of a substantial legal issue. It was originally anticipated that the National Board of Examinations (NBE) will administer the examination on June 15, 2025, in two separate shifts. In spite of this, there were issues raised about the impartiality of this strategy, which resulted in petitions being sent to the Supreme Court. The individuals who submitted the petition said that the administration of the examination in several shifts could potentially lead to different levels of difficulty, which would be in violation of the principle of equality that is contained in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Both the Hindustan Times and The Times of India have been cited.

The Historical Context of the Controversy

The National Eligibility and Eligibility Test for Postgraduate Medical Courses (NEET-PG) is a statewide test that takes place all over India. In 2025, the National Board of Examinations (NBE) planned to hold the examination in two shifts, citing the necessity to accommodate about 2.4 lakh candidates as well as the logistical issues that would arise. Concerns were raised by aspirants and educators in response to this move. They concerned that the use of different question papers during each shift could result in differences in the level of difficulty, which would then have an impact on the fairness of the examination process.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Legal Challenge and the Arguments in Support of Petitioners

A number of candidates and organizations have submitted petitions to the Supreme Court in an effort to challenge the decision made by the NBE. Due to the fact that it is practically impossible to guarantee that various question papers are of the same level of difficulty, they argued that there is a possibility that the uniformity of the evaluation could be compromised if the examination was administered in two shifts. The individuals who submitted the petition said that this imbalance could provide candidates in one shift with an unfair advantage over those in the other shift, which would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. In addition, they referred to the NEET-PG examination that took place in 2024, which presented a similar set of problems that resulted in legal conflicts and dissatisfaction among applicants.

Observations and Decisions Made by the Supreme Court

After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court issued an order to the National Board of Examinations (NBE) to administer the NEET-PG 2025 examination in a single shift. Because different question papers can never be of the same difficulty level, the Court underlined that holding the examination in multiple shifts could lead to arbitrariness and unfairness. This is because different question papers can never be alike. The bench, which consisted of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Kumar, and NV Anjaria, made the observation that it is possible to schedule the examination in a single shift across the country due to the technical improvements and resources that are already accessible. The argument that the NBE presented on the limitations of the logistical system was rejected by the court, which stated that it is of the utmost importance to guarantee fairness and openness in such an important examination. Several publications.

The Consequences of the Final Decision

This ruling by the Supreme Court of India has substantial repercussions for the way in which examinations at the national level are administered in India. It emphasizes the significance of preserving uniform criteria and keeping fairness in evaluations that are used to select the paths that thousands of candidates will take in their future. As a result of this verdict, a precedent has been established for future exams, underscoring the fact that logistical issues cannot take precedence over the fundamental rights of individuals. Through the use of Article 14, the Court has brought attention to the fact that it is imperative that all candidates be afforded equal opportunity and treatment, regardless of the administrative challenges they may face.

Responses Given by Members of the Medical Community

The verdict made by the Supreme Court was well received by the medical community, which included both aspiring physicians and educators. Many individuals voiced their relief at the news that the examination will now be carried out in a single shift, which would ensure that all applicants would be on an even playing field. A step toward restoring faith in the test system, the verdict was hailed as a triumph for meritocracy and a step toward rebuilding confidence in students. Moreover, there were many who advocated for the establishment of effective systems to forestall the occurrence of problems of a similar nature in the future. They emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency and consistency in the execution of such critical evaluations.