NEET PG 2025 postponed: Why did NBEMS defer the medical entrance exam just weeks before the date?
Why did NBEMS postpone NEET PG 2025?
The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET PG) 2025, initially slated for June 15, has been postponed by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS).
This decision follows a directive from the
Supreme Court of India
, emphasising the need for a single-shift examination to ensure fairness and transparency.
In response to concerns about potential disparities in difficulty levels between different exam shifts, the
Supreme Court
mandated that NEET PG 2025 be conducted in a single shift. The Court criticised the two-shift format as arbitrary and unfair, highlighting that normalisation processes cannot guarantee absolute fairness.
The directive aims to provide all candidates with an equal opportunity under uniform conditions.
Logistical challenges for single shift exam
Transitioning to a single-shift examination presents significant logistical hurdles for NBEMS. Conducting the exam in one session requires the identification and preparation of approximately 900 additional test centres nationwide. This expansion necessitates enhanced security measures, including the deployment of signal jammers and advanced surveillance systems.
To maintain the integrity of the examination process, NBEMS requires more time to arrange for the test centres.
NEET PG 2025 revised schedule awaited
Given the extensive preparations required to implement the Supreme Court's directive, NBEMS has postponed NEET PG 2025 until further notice. The board is actively working to finalize the revised schedule. As of now, NBEMS has not declared a new date for NEET PG 2025. The board has stated that a revised schedule — including exam date, admit card release, and city intimation slips — will be announced soon on its official websites:
nbe.edu.in
natboard.edu.in
While the examination has been postponed, candidates are advised to continue their preparation diligently. Staying updated through official NBEMS channels is advisable for timely information regarding the rescheduled dates and related announcements.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
High courts can't suo motu enhance punishment in appeal: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held high courts cannot exercise suo motu revision powers either to enhance the sentence or to convict an accused on any other charge in the absence of appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the state. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the verdict on an appeal filed by one Nagarajan, challenging an order of Madurai bench of the Madras High Court which convicted him for abetment of suicide of a woman and sentenced him to five-years rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted of charges of outraging the modesty and house trespass. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sistema TMS para empresas de logística Sistema TMS embarcador Saiba Mais Undo The top court noted that the trial court acquitted him of the charges of Section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide and convicted him only for outraging the modesty of the woman and house trespass. Nagarajan appealed in the high court, which upheld the trial court's order of conviction but suo motu initiated proceedings for his conviction under Section 306 of the IPC and convicted him. Live Events It came on record that no appeal was filed by the state, victim or complainant for enhancement of sentence or acquittal under section 306 of the IPC. "An appeal filed by the accused/convict and in the absence of any appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the state, the high court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge," the bench said. As a result, the bench set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC but confirmed his conviction for "outraging the modesty of woman" and "house trespass". "The appellant is directed to undergo the sentence and to pay the fine as imposed by the sessions court," it held. The top court noted that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the high court. "Thus, a conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC has also resulted in a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and an enhanced sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by none other than the appellant," it said. According to the bench "the rationale of the above can be explained in simple language by stating that no appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was". "That is exactly what we are seeking to reiterate in our judgment having regard to the facts of the present case." Justice Nagarathna, who authored the verdict, said for exercising powers of the appellate court for enhancement of sentence in an appeal filed either by the state or the complainant or the victim, CrPC provides that the appellate court can reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a court competent to try the offence, or alter the finding by maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same. "Thus, the power to enhance the sentence can be exercised by the appellate court only in an appeal filed by the state, victim or complainant, provided the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement," the court held. The bench said that the trial court should also be very careful while passing an order of sentence which must be "concomitant" with the charges framed and the findings arrived at while arriving at a judgment of conviction. Nagarajan had challenged the November 29, 2021 order of the high court. He was accused of outraging the modesty of his neighbour by trespassing her house on July 11, 2003. The woman died by suicide along with her infant, the very next day.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Waqf Umeed portal tantamount to contempt of court, claims Muslim Board
The Union government's plan to unveil the UMEED portal to digitise the registration process for Waqf properties across India has met with expected criticism from Muslim bodies, notably, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which is planning to challenge the move in the Supreme Court. The Board contends that at a time when petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 are under consideration of the Supreme Court such a move is tantamount to contempt of court. The UMEED portal, it is claimed, is based on the recommendations of the Act. Judgment reserved The Supreme Court, it may be noted, has heard several petitions against the Waqf Act, including those by many Muslim bodies, and reserved its judgment in the final hearing last month. 'The Waqf Act 2025 is currently under consideration in the Supreme Court. Most Muslim organisations have rejected it. The Opposition parties, human rights organisations, as well as Sikh, Christian, and other minority communities have also declared it unacceptable. It is unfortunate that despite this, the government is launching the Waqf Umeed Portal from June 6 to make the registration of Waqf properties mandatory. This is entirely illegal and constitutes contempt of court,' said All India Muslim Personal Law Board president Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani. The Board has appealed to State Waqf Boards besides common Muslim citizens to refrain from registering Waqf properties on this portal until the court delivers its verdict. 'It seems like a move to implement the Waqf Act through the back door,' a Board official said on condition of anonymity. The AIMPLB fears the government through the portal UMEED, an acronym for Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development, ostensibly meant to usher in greater transparency and better management of Waqf properties, is using it as a ruse to stake claim on Muslim properties through the Waqf-by-User clause in the new Act. The clause has been hotly contested in the Supreme Court. Property registration mandatory Incidentally, the UMEED portal makes the registration of Waqf properties mandatory and aims to integrate them all into a centralised digital platform. Developed under the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, the portal will require all Waqf properties to be registered within six months of its launch. The registration is said to be a long drawn-out process, needing comprehensive details of the property. The Minority Affairs Ministry, under which the portal will operate, has offered technical assistance besides detailed guidelines on the process of registering a property. The AIMPLB, however, contends that, if implemented, any Waqf property not registered on the portal, may be treated as disputed, and the community may even lose ownership over it. 'The registration is entirely based on the disputed law, which has been challenged in court, and labelled unconstitutional. Therefore, the Muslim Personal Law Board strongly opposes it. We will soon approach the apex court against this move of the government,' Mr. Rahmani said.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
SC acquits man of friend's murder, says conviction sans finding on motive
The police claimed Vaibhav fatally shot his friend by the service revolver of his father. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma observed the trial court and the high court held Vaibhav guilty based on circumstantial evidence without attributing motive to the crime. New Delhi, Jun 4 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted a man of his friend's murder and held no clear motive was attributed to the crime which took place in 2010. The convict, however, claimed the victim, namely, Mangesh accidentally shot himself. Vaibhav said he acted out of fear and cleaned up the crime scene aside and removed the dead body. The bench said, 'We hereby conclude that the high court has erred in arriving at the finding of guilt and in upholding the verdict of the trial court. The circumstantial evidence on record is not consistent and leaves a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome i.e. of innocence of the appellant on the charges of murder and illegal usage of firearms.' His conviction under Sections 302 (murder) IPC and a provision of the Arms Act was set aside. The bench, however, upheld his conviction under Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence) and sentenced him to the period already undergone. Justice Sharma, who authored the verdict, said a complete absence of motive though not conclusive was a relevant factor which weighed in the accused's favour. 'No doubt, the final effect of such absence on the outcome of the case shall depend upon the quality and weight of surrounding evidence. In the present case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have invariably revealed that the appellant and the deceased were friends and there was no ill-will between them. Even the father of the deceased has testified to that effect,' the judge said. The bench noted the relevance of motive in a case of homicide was a subject of prolonged discussion. 'Ordinarily, in cases involving direct evidence of the commission of crime, motive has little role to play as presence or absence of motive is immaterial if the commission of the crime stands proved through other evidence. Even otherwise, motiveless crimes are not unknown to the society. However, in cases purely based on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive could raise serious questions and might even render the chain of evidence as doubtful,' it said. On the subsequent conduct of Vaibhav of tampering with the crime scene, the bench said it was consistent with the theory of accidental death. 'That his act of removal of the dead body and concealment of articles was a result of fear of his father – is quite natural. A young boy studying in first year of college, with no criminal background and with no motive in sight, would certainly have become scared on seeing that his friend has accidentally shot himself in the living room of his house with the pistol belonging to his father and is lying in a pool of blood,' it said. His act though punishable by law, the court noted, was not unnatural and couldn't amount to murder. The subsequent acts of cleaning up the crime scene and making false enquiries amounted to disappearance of evidence and raised grave suspicion against the convict. 'However, mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial. The suspicion ought to have been substantiated by undeniable, reliable, unequivocal, consistent and credible circumstantial evidence, which does not leave the probability of any other theory,' it held. The theory put across by the appellant was found to be 'fairly probable', supported by medical evidence including the examination of the bullet injury and trajectory. The bench further held that the finding of the courts below was not supported by medical evidence. The accused and the victim were students at Bagla Homeopathy Medical College in Chandrapur district of Maharashtra and often commuted together on their two-wheelers. On September 16, 2010, they left college together on Mangesh's scooter, had tea at a stall and came to Vaibhav's house in the afternoon. When Mangesh's father discovered late evening that his son had not reached home, he looked for him and eventually lodged a missing report. Mangesh's body was discovered the following day and Vaibhav was booked as he was last in the victim's company. PTI MNL MNL AMK AMK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
