Supreme Court Probes NEET-PG Transparency Amidst NBEMS's 'Proprietary' Claims

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India is once again the focal point of a contentious legal battle over transparency in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025, a high-stakes examination for over 2.4 lakh medical aspirants. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan has issued notices in three writ petitions, scrutinizing the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) for its failure to publish complete question papers and answer keys, a move petitioners argue undermines the fundamental principles of fairness and accountability.

The court has granted the NBEMS two weeks to file a comprehensive response, extending a period of uncertainty that has already delayed the crucial All India Quota (AIQ) counselling schedule. The case, headlined by MEGHRAJ ROY Vs NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES , raises significant questions about the extent of judicial oversight in the conduct of national examinations and the balance between an examining body's claims of confidentiality and a candidate's right to verification.

The Core of the Controversy: A Promise of Transparency Revoked

The dispute ignited following the NEET-PG 2025 exam, which was conducted on August 3. In a move initially lauded as a significant step towards transparency, the NBEMS announced on August 21 that it would release the full question papers, answer keys, and individual response sheets. This was in line with the spirit of earlier Supreme Court directives, including an April 29 order by a bench also led by Justice Pardiwala, which mandated the publication of raw scores and answer keys to enhance accountability.

However, the NBEMS abruptly issued a "corrective notice," retracting its promise. Instead, it disclosed only "Question ID Numbers" from a master paper. Petitioners argue this disclosure is functionally useless. They contend that because questions and options were shuffled for each candidate, "answers without questions hold no value," making any meaningful verification of their scores impossible. The provided answer key was described as "opaque, unintelligible and incapable of meaningful verification," frustrating the very purpose of its release.

During a hearing, when the bench questioned NBEMS about this reversal, the board cited "miscommunication" and the need to maintain the confidentiality of its "proprietary information." This explanation was met with skepticism from the court, with one report noting an oral observation that this "seems like a step back from transparency."

Judicial Scrutiny and Skepticism

The Supreme Court bench, while issuing notice, has expressed pointed skepticism towards the petitioners' motivations. Justice Pardiwala has repeatedly questioned the small number of litigants relative to the total number of candidates and suggested their grievances might be linked to poor performance.

"When do you study? You should get out of all this litigation. Concentrate on your studies... Out of 2 lacs students who appeared, why do a handful of students have complaints to make?" Justice Pardiwala orally remarked during a hearing.

In another session, the bench asked, "Why do you think there is no transparency? Is it because you got less marks?" These remarks highlight a judicial concern that constitutional remedies under Article 32 might be invoked for individual grievances rather than for addressing systemic flaws.

In response, counsel for the petitioners, including Senior Advocate Shikhil Suri, clarified that they are not seeking to disrupt the counselling process but are fighting for a principle that affects all candidates. They presented evidence of widespread discontent, citing a Google form signed by over 2,000 aspirants and reports suggesting more than 5,000 are affected. They emphasized their demand is not for re-evaluation but for the basic data needed to verify the integrity of the evaluation.

Key Legal Arguments and Demands

The petitioners have anchored their case in the principles of procedural fairness and the need for accountability in public examinations. Their primary demands before the court are:

1. Full Disclosure: The release of complete question papers and individual response sheets, not just ambiguous ID numbers, to allow for a direct comparison and challenge of discrepancies.
2. Challenge Mechanism: A robust and fair system for candidates to challenge incorrect or unclear questions, a standard practice in many other national-level exams like JEE and CLAT.
3. Transparency in Normalisation: A clear explanation of the formula used to normalise scores, as the NEET-PG 2025 was conducted in two shifts despite a previous Supreme Court directive on May 30 to conduct it in a single shift to avoid such complexities.

Petitioners argue that these measures are not "unreasonable" but are essential to restore faith in an examination process that has been marred by controversy for the second consecutive year.

A Pattern of Litigation and Delayed Admissions

This legal challenge is not an isolated incident. The 2024 NEET-PG admissions process was similarly plagued by litigation over transparency, leading to significant delays in counselling that stretched into early 2025. That round of litigation concluded with the Supreme Court issuing 10 directives to the NBEMS to improve transparency, including publishing raw marks and answer keys. The current petitions suggest that, in the view of the aspirants, the board has failed to fully comply with the spirit of those orders.

The ongoing case has put a halt to the AIQ counselling managed by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), which was expected to begin in mid-September. While some states like Gujarat, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu have proceeded with their own counselling, aspirants vying for national quota seats remain in limbo. This delay threatens to disrupt the 2025-26 academic calendar, creating a ripple effect across the medical education system.

As the NBEMS prepares its "comprehensive" reply, the legal and medical communities await a verdict that could set a lasting precedent for the conduct of all major public examinations in India. The outcome will determine whether examining bodies can shield their processes behind claims of proprietary rights or if the judiciary will enforce a higher standard of transparency to uphold the integrity of a system that shapes the future of India’s medical professionals. The matter is scheduled to be heard after four weeks from the initial notice, with the next hearing expected after the NBEMS files its response.