NEET PG: SC To Hear Petitions Challenging Normalisation On May 22, Know Why It Is In Spotlight Again
Last Updated:
The Supreme Court will hear NEET PG normalisation petitions on May 22. Students demand a single-shift exam citing fairness and transparency concerns.
The Supreme Court will hear petitions concerning the normalisation process in the NEET PG exam on 22 May 2025. Although the cases were listed for hearing today, the hearing was postponed due to the Waqf case. Earlier, a bench comprising Justice B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih had observed that the matter pertained to the 2024 examination, and therefore, no further hearing was required. However, the petitioners argue that normalisation remains a major concern for students appearing in the NEET PG 2025 exam as well.
These petitions, which raise critical issues about the exam's transparency and the fairness of its two-shift format, are being closely followed by aspirants, especially with the exam scheduled for 15 June, less than a month away.
Two petitions related to NEET PG are currently before the Supreme Court. The first, filed by Dr Ishika Jain and a group of aspirants, calls for the release of answer keys, individual scorecards, and the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism for NEET PG 2024. The petitioners contend that the absence of these measures undermines transparency and fairness.
The second petition, filed by the United Doctors' Front, challenges the two-shift format of NEET PG 2025. It highlights concerns about differences in question paper difficulty and questions the opacity of the score normalisation process, calling for a more equitable and transparent evaluation system.
The demand for a single-shift NEET PG exam stems from growing concerns over fairness, transparency, and equal evaluation standards. Currently, due to the large number of applicants, the exam is conducted in multiple shifts, each with a different set of question papers. This format has led to several issues flagged by aspirants and student groups.
In 2024, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) announced the NEET PG results on 23 August. Shortly thereafter, many candidates raised concerns about discrepancies in their results, alleging that improper normalisation had led to unexpectedly low ranks. Numerous aspirants cross-checked their answers with unofficial keys released by coaching institutes and pointed out inconsistencies, which further fuelled dissatisfaction with the multi-shift system.
Dr Anaga, an aspirant, said, 'If NEET PG 2025 cannot ensure transparency and equal opportunity for all, it should be dissolved, and each state exam authority should conduct its own exam. Justice is not served otherwise. There must be a single-shift exam so everyone gets a fair chance."
Another aspirant appealed, 'Dear respected faculty members, we humbly request your support in our fight for a single-shift NEET PG exam. Multiple shifts lead to unfairness despite normalisation. Your voice can bring change. Please stand with us."
Understanding Normalisation: Why It Matters in Multi-Shift Exams
When the number of candidates applying for an exam is very high, it is often conducted in multiple shifts or over several days. In such cases, students in each shift receive different sets of question papers, which can result in some candidates facing easier papers while others have tougher ones. The key question then is — how is the difficulty level determined and adjusted?
Here's how normalisation works:
Suppose an exam has three different sets of question papers — A, B, and C. The average score of candidates who attempted each set is calculated.
For example:
Candidates who attempted Set A have an average score of 70 marks
Candidates who attempted Set B have an average score of 75 marks
Candidates who attempted Set C have an average score of 80 marks
In this scenario, Set C is considered the easiest, and Set A the toughest. During normalisation, candidates who took the easier set may lose some marks, while those who sat for the tougher set are awarded additional marks to balance the difficulty.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Constitution supreme and highest legal doctrine
In a significant move that underscored the spirit of 'Constitutional Dialogue and Institutional Harmony' President Droupadi Murmu, about a month ago, on May 13 sought 'Supreme Court Opinion' on the 'judicially-imposed timelines' for giving assent to state bills. In seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court, Rashtrapathi invoked Article 143 of the Constitution, whether timelines can be judicially imposed on President and Governors for granting or withholding assent to state legislature Bills, in the absence of such provision in constitution. This reference reflected a 'Commitment to Democratic Clarity and Cooperative Federalism' and as a 'Constructive Step Toward Clarifying the Contours of Constitutional Roles.' It signaled the Head of State's Role in upholding the 'Sanctity of Constitutional Procedures' in harmony with the oath taken by her to 'Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution and the Law' while swearing in. President's Reference by posing 14 questions included broader perspective about 'Judicial Authority under Article 142' and the 'Justiciability of Executive Actions' concerning pending legislation that has not yet become law. This reference has wide ranging 'Constitutional Significance' in view of the fact that the 'Relevant Constitutional Provision' has now opened the door for judicial clarification on the boundaries of Presidential and Gubernatorial discretion. President's Reference was just a day before Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai's sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI). The beauty of Indian democracy is, President administered CJI's oath of 'Solemn affirmation of allegiance to the Constitution, upholding the sovereignty and integrity of India, and to uphold the Constitution and laws of India.' In fact, Rashtrapathi's oath of 'Affirmation to faithfully execute the office of President or discharge the functions of the President of India, and to the best of her ability to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution and the Law' while sworn in was administered by CJI. Prime Minister's oath administered by Rashtrapathi, also included 'Solemn affirmation to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and Law.' Hence, Constitution of India, is the Supreme Law and the Highest Legal Doctrine, that outlines country's fundamental political code, structure, procedures, powers, and duties of constitutional bodies. It is binding on the 'Legislative, Executive, and Judicial' branches. The Executive Power despite vested in the President, is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister and his team. PM is the 'Real Executive Head.' President, though, constitutionally is the Head of the Parliament, or the Legislature, in reality, the PM and Council of Ministers hold the true Legislative Power. As the central legislative body, the Parliament makes laws, represents the interests and aspirations of citizens. It can amend the Constitution. An independent judiciary, headed by the supreme judicial authority, the Supreme Court of India, interprets and upholds the Constitution by way of 'Judicial Review' as a check on the Legislature. Constitution also confers the power of 'Judicial Review' on High Courts. The court has the authority to interpret legislation passed by the Legislature as well as the Constitution. This is the beauty of Indian Parliamentary Democracy. Over a time, 'Judicial Activism and Overreach' and excessive interference in the Legislative and Executive Spheres, has been felt by critiques. Judiciary overstepping its bounds, potentially infringing on the powers of the Legislature or Executive, or by interpreting the Constitutional Provisions, contradicting the spirit of the Constitution, also felt frequently. This is debatable!! When the court's interpretation of a law goes beyond the intended scope or purpose, such as issuing directives to the executive, rather than simply reviewing their actions, it may amount to contradicting the spirit of the Constitution. The use of Article 142 by the Supreme Court to direct a three-month timeframe for the President to clear bills, bypassing the 'President's Constitutional Authority' ostensibly under the guise of 'Judicial Review' raised concerns about potential overreach of judicial power and as infringing on the separation of powers. This again is debatable. A day before his oath taking, CJI Gavai in an informal interaction with journalists at the Supreme Court Press Lounge said the 'Role of a Chief Justice was not one of Power but of Profound Duty.' Four days earlier, in similar informal chat with New Delhi Journalists, he put to rest the debate on whether 'Parliament or Judiciary is Superior' by asserting that the 'Constitution is Supreme.' He differed with the criticism that Supreme Court was using Article 142 as a 'Missile.' The question now raised by constitutional analysts is; can 'Judicial Review' be extended to override or prescribe limits to the President, an Authority endowed with constitutional autonomy? President is the formal head of the 'Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary' and holds the power to make every constitutional appointment, which underscore the authoritative and representative stature of the President. 'Judicial Review' despite being the cornerstone of Indian Constitution, the 'Principle of Presidential Independence' is equally important. This too debatable. Let us analyse the whole gamut from a different angle. Indian Judiciary follows a 'Well-Defined Tiered Structure' from a trial court or single bench, to the Constitution Full Bench of the Supreme Court. Parliament despite tasked with crafting the very laws that the judiciary interprets, follows a relatively flat, one-stage structure, where legislation is passed in a singular process, often marked by hurried debates, political compulsions, and insufficient scrutiny, leading to increasing instances of judicial scrutiny, stays, and even annulments. This philosophical imbalance not only erodes the primacy of Parliament but also triggers debates on 'Judicial Overreach.' An alternate could be reinforcing 'Parliament's own Internal Mechanisms' through a multi-tiered legislative review process. A 'Three-Tier Internal Legislative System' operating within and across both Houses of Parliament, with defined roles, appellate stages, and a mechanism for institutional finality, unless constitutionally revisited, may be given a thought. In an evolution of 'Mature Parliamentary Democracy like India' it calls for a constructive proposal, for a 'Structured, Appellate-Style, Multi-Tiered Parliament System' analogous to how the Judiciary has 'Single, Division, and Full benches' with finality at each stage unless appealed upward, but purely in a legislative context. This enhances 'Legislative Maturity, Efficiency, and Accountability' while potentially offsetting the need for 'Frequent Judicial Intervention' in Legislative Matters. An in-depth 'Thematic Review' by a Cell comprising 'Members from Standing Committees, Policy Experts, and Research Staff' could be the function of First Tier. 'Appellate Function' in the Second Tier is by a 'Joint Legislative Review Panel (JLRP), comprising 'Floor Leaders, Constitutional Experts, Former Speakers, Former Vice Presidents' etc. to where the Bill automatically proceeds. The Third and Final Tier, the 'Constitutional Review Chamber (CRC)' is meant primarily to review bills. CRC provides the 'Final Legislative Seal of Credibility and Consensus.' This Structure honors Constitution and its Enduring Principles as Supreme. Rashtrapathi's reference eventually leads to 'Relook at Separation of Powers, Federal Structure, and Checks and Balances' including the legislative process. The Court's opinion as and when given, may have profound implications and valid concerns about preserving the discretion embedded in the Constitution and avoiding 'Judicial Micromanagement of Executive Timelines' as well as reinforcing the Supremacy of the Constitution. Notwithstanding this, strangely, when timelines are made mandatory for President, nearly a month's silence from the Apex Court feels like a graceful exception, an open-ended adjournment from its own rulebook! Speaking at a felicitation programme organised by 'Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa' CJI observed that, 'Constitution is Supreme not the Judiciary or Executive,' and the 'Three Equal Pillars-Judiciary, Executive and Legislature' must work together. And hence, it is the 'Constitution, Not Any Single Organ' that provides the 'Framework for India's Democratic Functioning.' Legislature within its limits, Executive with responsibility, and Judicial Review with restraint, ensuring balance rather than dominance shall be the desired outcome.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Ex-prez Kovind lauds Dattatreya, calls him ‘universally admired'
Hyderabad: Former President Ram Nath Kovind lauded Haryana Governor Bandaru Dattatreya as a truly multidimensional figure, remarking on the rare quality of being universally admired. These sentiments were shared at a well-attended event at Silpakala Vedika, where Mr Kovind formally launched the Telugu edition of Governor Dattatreya's autobiography, titled 'Prajala Kathe Naa Atmakatha' (The Story of the People of Telangana is My Autobiography). The significant gathering included former Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, alongside Governors Indrasena Reddy of Tripura, Kambampati Haribabu of Odisha, and Syed Abdul Nazeer of Andhra Pradesh. Kovind recounted Dattatreya's life journey, highlighting his consistent efforts to connect with and uplift individuals from disadvantaged and underprivileged backgrounds. He particularly noted Dattatreya's resilience during challenging periods, including the Emergency, where he reportedly boosted the morale of fellow detainees. The former President also underscored Dattatreya's impactful tenure as Union Minister for Labour and Employment, where his reforms concerning minimum wages, pensions, and welfare programmes benefited thousands. Kovind observed that the sheer number of well-wishers present at the autobiography launch felt more like a birthday celebration for the Governor. Former Vice President Venkaiah Naidu spoke of the extraordinary sight of such esteemed personalities assembled on one stage to honour a genuinely good man with a 'golden heart.' He stressed that Dattatreya's unwavering dedication to public service and his ability to maintain a grounded life serve as a powerful inspiration for future generations. Naidu likened Dattatreya's conduct to a water droplet on a lotus leaf, signifying his consistent integrity regardless of his position. Expressing concern over politicians frequently changing parties, he commended Dattatreya's steadfast commitment to his ideology and his focus on purposeful politics, always prioritising nationalism and the well-being of society. The Governors of Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Tripura, and Telangana all acknowledged Dattatreya's approachable nature, simplicity, and friendly demeanour, qualities that have endeared him to many. People affectionately refer to him as 'Dattanna' (brother), a testament to the strong bonds he has forged while addressing their concerns. They highlighted his dedication to empowering rural communities and fostering social harmony and national unity. The Governors of Tripura and Odisha shared personal anecdotes of their interactions with Mr Dattatreya, emphasising that his life story remains a source of inspiration for younger generations. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice N V Ramana underscored Dattatreya's emphasis on human relationships. Union Ministers G Kishan Reddy, Bhupathi Raju Srinivasa Varma, Andhra Pradesh Health Minister Satyakumar Yadav, Telangana Road and Buildings Minister Komati Reddy Venkat Reddy, and BJP MP Dr K Laxman also reflected on their associations with Dattatreya. They recalled his impactful work as an RSS Pracharak during the Divineema Cyclone disaster response, his role in establishing the Deen Dayal Housing Colony for those displaced, and the sanctioning of a 300-bed ESI hospital in Visakhapatnam. His initiatives, such as the Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana houses in Musheerabad and Visakhapatnam, further exemplify his profound commitment to serving the poor and needy.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Ex-SIB chief lands in city, to appear before SIT today
Hyderabad: The key accused in the phone tapping case, former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T Prabhakar Rao arrived in Hyderabad from the United States on Sunday. He is likely to appear before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Monday. The retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, who has been in the US for 14 months, arrived in India as directed by the Supreme Court last week. Responding to the court orders, Prabhakar Rao gave an undertaking to the Supreme Court that he will return to India soon after receiving a one-time entry passport and cooperate with the investigation. The Indian Embassy in the United States also issued an emergency transit warrant to former SIB chief Prabhakar Rao, following orders by the Supreme Court to appear before the inquiry into the phone tapping case. The investigating team already achieved considerable progress in the phone tapping case by questioning the police officials and influential persons including journalists recently. Prabhakar Rao had allegedly constituted a team within SIB with a group of officials, including Praneeth Rao, for surveillance of rival political leaders, their families and dissidents within the ruling party, businessmen, journalists and even judges. The allegations under the previous government of BRS came to light in March last year with the arrest of Deputy Superintendent of Police Praneeth Rao following a complaint from his superior, D Ramesh, Additional SP with the SIB. The police have so far named six accused in the case. Praneeth Rao, Additional SPs Thirupathanna and Bhujanga Rao and former DCP P Radha Kishan Rao were arrested in the case.
