Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court today(September 3) dismissed a PIL filed seeking a re-conduct of the NEET-PG 2026 exam, and made strong critical remarks agaainst the petitioner and the advocate for filing such a plea to disrupt the exam process.

The petitioner sought re-examination for all students, alleging violation of the May 2025 order wherein the Court had ordered NEET PG to be conducted in a single shift.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe made strong oral observations against the advocate and the petitioner and remarked that they have become "full-time litigants". The bench orally expressed that it would take the matter with the Bar Council of India regarding misuse of the writ jurisdiction by the advocate. However, it ultimately dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs. 25,000.

"The writ petition was taken up on board. Heard...We dismiss this with cost of Rs.25,000."

The petitioner contended that around 2,500 candidates couldn't complete their exams at the iON Digital Zone Sitapura centres in Jaipur due to an internal power outage. The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences(NBEMS) later announced a second exam for these candidates, which is set to take place on September 5.

In today's hearing, the NBEMS's counsel informed that the petitioners are from Noida and Punjab, and they aren't the ones who are affected. However, the petitioner's counsel stated that the internal disruption wasn't restricted to Jaipur centres only but has happened in 34 centres, including Noida.

The NBEMS counsel responded: "There were 1,111 examination centres all over India. In two centres located in Jaipur because of power failure[ exam couldn't be conducted. Despite all over measures, exam could not be conducted. But those students are not before you today. These three students, two of them...are from Noida and Punjab, and affected students are Jaipur students."

Justice Aradhe then asked if the petitioners, who have filed the present PIL, are going to appear in the exam, to which the counsel said no.

Hearing this, Justice Narasimha said: "You are a full-time PIL litigant? This person has become a full-time PIL litigant. Wherever exams are conducted, you go on to file petitions. Why did you file a petition earlier to stay? Is it at your instance or is she[petitioner] interested in filing it?...We will ask serious action to be taken."

Justice Narasimha then asked the petitioner's counsel where is he getting the information that students in 34 centres were affected. The petitioner replied that the concerned students had approached him. However, NBEMS counsel revealed that the advocate invited comments from students on social media. She said: "May I say something I would not have liked to say. His social media posts are with us where he is asking the students. There are videos, his whole social media where he has said if you[students] have any problem, I am mentioning a matter on behalf of Aditi. If you want to participate, please tell...Such an havoc has been created, we are getting representation all over the country."

On this, Justice Narasimha said: "We will ask the Bar Council to take action. Just because of getting two more extra briefs, how are you concerned about so many students calling you and informing you? Do you realise the kind of harm you are causing this country? Look at the way this country is so accessible. See you have the freedom and liberty of just walking into the Chief Justice's Court and then saying that there is an urgent matter. Courts and judges bent backwards. Chief Justice on your statement, without realising that you are working on social media, he assigned the case to us. We are sitting at 4'o clock even before a matter is actually taken up for hearing and then you end up just making a statement that people are complaining and then you go on social media."

The petitioner had mentioned this matter before Chief Justice Surya Kant yesterday, where the bench stated that the matter will go before Justice PS Narasimha's bench.  Subsequently, the lawyer mentioned the matter before the present bench.

It may be noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition [Dr. ADITI & ORS v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS| DIARY NO. - 22918/2025] against the examination to be conducted in two shifts. 


Tags: