SC Refuses To Postpone The NEET PG 2023 Examinations, Dismisses Petitions

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by seventeen doctors seeking a postponement of the National Eligibility Cumulative Entrance Test (NEET) postgraduate examination scheduled for March 5, 2023.

The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the National Board of Examinations (NBE) had changed the eligibility criteria twice, clearly indicating oversight and mismanagement on its part of not consulting state medical bodies in advance.

As a result, candidates did not have enough time to prepare, it was submitted.

“Candidates should not be made to suffer as a result of NBE’s fault. It is humbly submitted that the NBE issued the impugned notice without first consulting with all of the State Medical Councils on one of the most important aspects of eligibility,” the petitioners contended.

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta stated that nothing prevented anyone appearing from trying again.

“Nothing in this world prevents anyone from trying again. NEET norms is a process of evolution. It is possible for something to go wrong at times,” the bench stated.

According to the petitioners, the candidates were subjected to last-minute chaos and confusion due to NBE’s fault.

The Court was also informed that there had never been a 5-month gap between the exam date and the counselling date in the history of NEET PG.

It was also claimed that candidates filed numerous Right To Information (RTI) applications in November seeking the eligibility criteria and examination date. However, the only RTI response received suggested that the information bulletin would be released 2-3 months in advance.

During today’s hearing, ASG Aishwarya Bhati stated that all administrative arrangements were in place and that no other date was available with the technology partner.

“My Lords, please consider that we are attempting to restore the calendar of two years ago,” Bhati stated, referring to previous years’ relaxations in light of the COVID pandemic.

However, the Court declined to intervene.