In a developing contest between medical students and examination authorities, thousands of NEET-PG aspirants have launched a signature campaign to demonstrate widespread opposition to the two-shift examination format planned for the upcoming National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025.
The campaign follows a controversial response from the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), claiming that opposition to the two-shift system is limited to just a handful of petitioners rather than representing the broader aspirant community.
Cases filed before exam
There are multiple cases that have been filed against the NBEMS opaque functioning as well as the two-shift format of NEET-PG.
A new writ petition, titled Dr Aditi v National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), was filed on April 29, 2025, in the Supreme Court. The petition, represented by Supreme Court Advocate Abhisht Hela and filed through Advocate on Record (AOR) Sukriti Bhatnagar, is reportedly the first of several fresh petitions filed before the commencement of NEET-PG 2025.
The petition was first heard on May 5, 2025, alongside another related petition filed by the United Doctors' Front (UDF). Both petitions highlight concerns about the controversial two-shift examination format, which has faced opposition since its introduction.
NBE's reply reveals multiple objections
EdexLive has obtained access to the NBE's reply filed in response to the UDF's petition, which outlines several preliminary objections to the case.
Among these, the board has cited previous dismissals of similar petitions, questioned the maintainability of the current petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, and argued against postponing the examination scheduled for June 15.
In their reply, the NBE claims that "delaying the NEET PG examination at the eleventh hour, would greatly prejudice lakhs of aspirants and also disturb the academic calendar. Such postponement will result in delay in admissions, which in turn delays the entry of the new post graduates residents into the healthcare system, that too, in a country which already faces shortage of specialists."
The board also argues that "in terms of the settled legal principles, the question papers, answer keys and responses of the candidates cannot be disclosed in view of the fact that National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Post Graduate (NEET PG) is a specialised subject examination, disclosure of which would not be in public interest."
Perhaps most controversially, the NBE has claimed that the petitioners lack sufficient representation to justify their legal challenge.
NBE questions petitioners' standing
In a startling development, the NBEMS has questioned whether the petitioners truly represent the interests of the larger student body.
According to their reply to the UDF petition, the board claimed that "the Petitioner Association lacks the locus standi to maintain the present petition" and "has not disclosed the composition of its members, in absence of which, it remains uncertain as to whether the Petitioner Association is a bonafide representative of the actual applicants of NEET PG 2025."
This response has sparked outrage across social media platforms, particularly on X (formerly Twitter). Students and medical activists are now circulating a Google Form created by Dr Aditi (petitioner of the Dr Aditi v National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) case) have also received a similar response when it comes to her case. Hence, she is urging fellow aspirants to sign in large numbers to demonstrate mass opposition to the current examination format.
The document obtained by EdexLive further reveals the NBE's contention that the demands to make NEET-PG 2025 a single-shift exam "is not a sentiment shared by the larger number of aspirants" but rather limited to "these few petitioners who have filed the case."
Students rally behind petition
Dr Aditi, the primary petitioner in the case, explained the reasoning behind the signature campaign in an interview.
"NBE has filed a reply recently mentioning there are just seven petitioners in the case and that others want to stick to a double shift system," she told EdexLive. "We are circulating the Google form for aspirants to sign it, as it is not possible for everyone to be a petitioner due to complexity and the fear of court proceedings."
She further emphasised the widespread nature of the concerns: "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."
According to Dr Aditi, the petition has already gathered over 6,000 signatures and continues to gain momentum.
Legal experts dismiss NBE's argument
Supreme Court Advocate Abhisht Hela, who is representing Dr Aditi's case, dismissed the NBE's objection regarding the number of petitioners as irrelevant.
"Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures that even if a single person is standing against the whole country, it's not wrong. It's their fundamental right that needs to be protected, and asking the court to dismiss the plea on this basis does not stand," he stated.
He explained that the timing of NBE’s response was strategic. Since the courts are about to go on annual summer vacation, the petitioners had asked for an ex parte stay which means they requested the court to temporarily stop an action without waiting for the other side (NBE) to respond. If NBE hadn’t submitted any reply, the court might have granted that stay by default. So, by quickly filing a response, NBE avoided this and prevented the stay from being granted automatically.
Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, who represents the UDF's petition seeking disclosure of the normalisation methodology adopted for NEET-PG 2024 and transparency in the upcoming NEET-PG 2025 examination process, also criticised the board's response.
"To suggest an association that represents 2.5 lakh aspirants and the medical community across India lacks standing seems like a baseless argument," Rajput told EdexLive. "If everything is perfect within the system, then why is this same issue of transparency, as well as the two-shift format, appearing as different petitions in various high courts?"
As the summer vacation of the court approaches, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court of India to rise as the real last resort of justice for these students.
Advocate Rajput aptly underscores this sentiment, emphasising faith in the judiciary. “Our prayer is simple,” he states and adds, “We seek the disclosure of the formula and the scientific basis behind the normalisation process to safeguard the Constitutional rights of all medical aspirants and ensure a selection process that is transparent, fair, and truly merit-based.”
