NEET PG 2025 On August 3? NBEMS Proposes New Date, Submits Application In SC
Last Updated:
NEET PG 2025: In the application, the NBE explained that August 3 is the earliest date available from its technology partner, TCS, to hold the exam in a single shift.
The National Board of Examination has submitted a request to the Supreme Court to reschedule the NEET PG 2025 exam to August 3, 2025. Earlier, the exam was scheduled for June 15, however, on June 2, the Supreme Court ordered to conduct the exam in a single shift rather than in two shifts. Following this, the NBE had announced that the exam would be postponed.
In the application to SC, the NBE explained that August 3 is the earliest date available from its technology partner, TCS, to hold the exam in a single shift. The period between May 30 and June 15 was inadequate to organise the exam in a single shift, as it would require a greater number of exam centres across more cities and extensive hardware supply chain management, TCS has said, reported Live Law.
'The current booking of test centres is double the capacity as the examination was planned at the centres in two shifts…1000+ Centres shall need to be booked and engaged which will require considerable time. The infrastructure needed to be engaged to execute a shift of 242679 Candidates with Buffer would require Infrastructure for 2.70 Lakh to be made available across the country which will require considerable amount of time," the application states, the report added.
Besides, the NEET PG 2025 application window will be reopened, giving candidates a fresh chance to choose their preferred test city. Once the new test city preferences are received, candidates will be reassigned to test centres. This entire process will take some time, the report stated.
On its application, NBE also highlighted the need for sufficient time to arrange secure examination venues, adequate compatible computer systems, three-layer power backup systems, network infrastructure, security software and hardware, skilled technical personnel, anti-cheating measures, surveillance systems, operational readiness of each test centre, mock drills, load tests, and system audits as it needs to prevent malpractice.
First Published:
June 03, 2025, 20:02 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's travel ban: Who is impacted? List of countries facing US action from June 9
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday revived one of the previous policies of his first term, announcing that citizens from 12 countries would be barred from entering the United States, with additional restrictions imposed on travellers from seven others, most of which are mainly Muslim nations. In a video shared on social media, Trump linked the newly announced travel ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, arguing that it highlighted the risks posed by individuals who overstay their visas. The suspect in the attack, however, is from Egypt — a country not included on Trump's restricted list — and, according to the Department of Homeland Security, had overstayed a tourist visa. Trump justified the ban by claiming that certain countries have 'deficient' screening and vetting processes or have consistently refused to repatriate their citizens. His decision heavily draws on an annual report by Homeland Security, which tracks visa overstays among tourists, business travellers, and students entering by air or sea, focusing on nations with particularly high overstay rates. 'We don't want them,' Trump said. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was reworked amid legal challenges until the Supreme Court upheld a version in 2018. The ban impacted various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, as well as North Koreans and certain Venezuelan government officials and their families. Trump has defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was intended to protect the country and was not based on anti-Muslim bias. However, Trump had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House. Here are the 12 countries placed under the ban and the seven placed under travel restrictions: Banned from US travel: Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, the Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Restricted to US travel: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. The proclamation signed by Donald Trump will come into force on 9 June 2025, at 12:01 AM EDT, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. The travel restrictions apply to foreign nationals from the designated countries who: Are outside the United States as of 9 June, and Do not possess a valid visa on that date. However, the proclamation clarifies that any immigration or non-immigrant visa issued before 9 June will remain valid and will not be revoked under this order. Some, but not all, 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Trump's first term. The proclamation restricts entry for immigrants and those on specific temporary visas—B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas—from the following countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. 1. Lawful permanent residents (green card holders) of the US. 2. Dual nationals travelling on a passport from a non-restricted country. 3. Diplomats with valid non-immigrant visas. 4. Athletes and their immediate relatives attend events like the Olympics or other major sports competitions. Immediate family immigrant visas. Afghan Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs). Special Immigrant Visas for U.S. government employees. Immigrant visas for persecuted ethnic and religious minorities from Iran. The ban includes exceptions for Afghans holding Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), typically granted to those who worked closely with the US government during the two-decade war in Afghanistan. It is to be further noted that Afghanistan was among the top sources of resettled refugees, with approximately 14,000 arrivals in the 12 months leading up to September 2024. It's a stark contrast to Trump's earlier outlook— he had suspended refugee resettlement on his very first day in office during his previous term. 'To include Afghanistan — a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years — is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac. Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents, and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty and hunger, and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85 per cent of its capital, Port-au-Prince, as reported by AP. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Trump wrote. The Iranian government has yet to respond to its inclusion on the list. The Trump administration labelled Iran a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except those already holding visas or entering the US on special visas granted to minorities facing persecution. The travel ban stems from an executive order issued by Trump on 20 January, directing the Departments of State, Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to prepare a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and assess whether entry from certain countries posed a national security threat. International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, as reported by The Associated Press. Other Middle Eastern countries on the list—Libya, Sudan, and Yemen—are all engulfed in ongoing civil conflicts with territories controlled by rival factions. Sudan is currently experiencing active warfare, Yemen's conflict remains largely stalemated and Libya's armed factions continue to clash. (With inputs from Associated Press)
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
NEET PG 2025: Supreme Court To Hear Plea On Friday Over Proposed Exam Date
The Supreme Court will hear the National Board of Examinations' (NBE) application on Friday, seeking approval to conduct the NEET PG 2025 exam on August 3. The exam, originally scheduled for June 15, was postponed after the top court raised concerns over its proposed two-shift format. The NBE has approached the top court requesting permission to hold the entrance test in a single shift on the new proposed date. This move follows the court's earlier intervention last Friday, when it objected to the exam being held in two sessions. The Supreme Court had observed that holding the exam in two shifts could lead to discrepancies in difficulty levels, which may unfairly impact candidates. The bench stressed that a uniform examination must be conducted in a single session across the country to ensure fairness and transparency. The court had directed NBE to make logistical arrangements to hold the exam in one shift. It had also clarified that if the Board required additional time to implement this direction, it could return to the court seeking more time. The case arises from a petition filed by the United Doctors Front, which challenged the NBE's decision to hold the postgraduate medical entrance exam in two shifts. The petition argued that such a format could create unequal conditions for candidates and demanded that the exam be conducted in one shift nationwide. In the previous hearing, the court had issued a notice on the petition and sought a response from the NBE, leading to the current hearing scheduled for this week.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Same-Sex Unions Not Marriages In Law But Queer Couples Can Form A Family: Madras High Court
Last Updated: The court invoked an emotional letter by late Justice Leila Seth and said not every parent is like her who could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation The Madras High Court recently ordered the release of a 25-year-old woman from the illegal custody of her natal family, declaring that no adult can be detained against their will merely for choosing a same-sex partner. A habeas corpus petition was filed by MA, seeking the release of her partner, D, who her father and other family members had allegedly confined. D's (the detenue's) mother, who accompanied her, accused the petitioner of leading her daughter astray and claimed she was addicted to drugs—allegations the court found baseless after observing the detenue's composure and clarity. The bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan interacted with the detenue in private, as per Supreme Court guidelines in Devu G Nair v State of Kerala, to ascertain her true wishes. The woman, a well-qualified adult, told the court that she is a lesbian and in a consensual relationship with the petitioner. She described being forcibly taken home, subjected to rituals intended to 'cure" her, and even beaten by her family members. Highlighting India's evolving legal recognition of LGBTQIA+ rights, the bench referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NALSA v. Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and the recognition of 'chosen families" in Deepika Singh v. CAT. The judges emphasised that sexual orientation and identity fall squarely within the protective ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity. 'We feel a certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer'," the bench observed. 'To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal. There is nothing strange or odd about such inclinations. Why then should they be called as queer?" the court said. The judgment concluded with a continuing mandamus directing jurisdictional police to provide protection to the couple if required and restrained the woman's family from interfering with her liberty. 'We endeavoured in vain to impress upon the mother that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own," the court noted, while expressing empathy for the parent's social conditioning. The bench invoked a letter by the late Justice Leila Seth, who had once written emotionally about the criminalisation of homosexuality and the pain it caused families. 'What makes life meaningful is love. The right that makes us human is the right to love," she wrote. 'Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth. She could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation," the bench emphasised. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (2023), the high court stressed that it may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, but they can very well form a family. 'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family," the division bench held. First Published: June 05, 2025, 13:17 IST
