New Delhi: Coming down heavily on the misuse of public interest litigation, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking a re-test of the NEET-PG 2026 examination and slapped a fine of ₹25,000 on the petitioner.
The bench, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, severely reprimanded the advocate representing the petitioner for attempting to disrupt the examination process and indicated that the court would write to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to initiate strict disciplinary action against the lawyer.
The petitioner had demanded a fresh examination for all candidates, alleging that the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) violated a May 2025 Supreme Court directive that mandated conducting the NEET-PG exam in a single shift.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that around 2,500 candidates failed to complete their test at the iON Digital Zone centres in Sitapura, Jaipur, due to an internal power outage. However, NBEMS had already scheduled a separate re-test on September 5 exclusively for the candidates affected by this specific disruption.
The NBEMS counsel informed the court that the NEET-PG exam was held across 1,111 centres nationwide, and the technical snag was isolated to just two centres in Jaipur. Crucially, the counsel highlighted that the petitioners themselves hailed from Noida and Punjab and were completely unaffected by the power failure.
When Justice Aradhe inquired if the petitioners even intended to appear for the exam, their counsel replied in the negative. This prompted a sharp rebuke from Justice Narasimha.
“Have you become a full-time PIL litigant? Wherever exams are conducted, you reach there to file petitions,” Justice Narasimha remarked. Questioning the advocate’s motives, he added, “Just because you got two extra briefs, how did you become so concerned about students calling and complaining? Do you realise the kind of harm you are causing this country?”
The top court noted that the advocate had been actively soliciting cases from aspirants on social media, further complicating the issue. Concluding the hearing, the bench outrightly rejected the plea and enforced the monetary penalty, setting a stern precedent against frivolous legal interventions in national-level examinations.