NEET PG 2025 Two-Shift Format Faces Backlash Over Fairness and Transparency Concerns

The announcement of NEET PG 2025 being conducted in two shifts on June 15 has sparked widespread opposition among doctors and medical aspirants nationwide. Critics argue that the normalization process used to adjust scores across shifts is flawed, leading to fairness concerns. Medical associations, including IMA-JDN Bihar and AIMDA, have urged the NBEMS to revert to a single-shift format, citing transparency issues and the potential for legal challenges. The matter has also been raised in Parliament, with calls for intervention to ensure the integrity of the exam process.

A Two-Shift Exam Sparks Debate Over Fairness and Transparency

The decision by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to conduct the NEET PG 2025 examination in two separate shifts has ignited a storm of criticism from medical professionals, aspirants, and advocacy groups across the country. With the exam scheduled for June 15, 2025, and divided into morning and afternoon sessions, concerns about fairness and transparency have once again come to the forefront, echoing grievances from the previous year’s two-shift format.

The core of the contention lies in the normalization process employed to adjust scores between the two shifts. Critics argue that this method fails to account for disparities in difficulty levels across sessions, leaving some candidates at a disadvantage. This issue, they claim, undermines the integrity of the examination and creates an uneven playing field for aspirants vying for postgraduate medical seats. The dissatisfaction is not new; NEET PG 2024 faced similar backlash, with many candidates alleging that the normalization process unfairly skewed results. These complaints escalated into legal challenges, forcing authorities to defend their methodology amidst mounting pressure for reform.

Medical associations, including IMA-JDN Bihar, AIMDA, UDF, and FAIMA, have taken a firm stand against the two-shift format, urging NBEMS to reconsider its decision and conduct the examination in a single session. They argue that a unified shift would eliminate the need for normalization altogether, ensuring a transparent and equitable evaluation process. The associations have pointed out that the stress of competing in a system perceived as flawed adds an unnecessary burden to medical aspirants already grappling with the high stakes of the NEET PG.

The issue has even reached the halls of Parliament, with Kerala MP Kodikunnil Suresh raising the matter as an adjournment motion to demand government intervention. Suresh’s appeal underscores the gravity of the situation, highlighting the widespread dissatisfaction among aspirants and the potential repercussions of continuing with the controversial format. The Parliament's involvement signals that the debate over NEET PG’s structure is no longer confined to academic circles; it has become a matter of public policy, with implications for the future of medical education in India.

Doctors and advocacy groups warn that persisting with the two-shift format could lead to a cascade of challenges, including legal disputes, delays in admissions, and heightened stress levels for candidates. In a profession where precision and fairness are paramount, the perception of bias in the examination process risks eroding trust in the system. The stakes are high, not only for the aspirants but also for the institutions and authorities tasked with maintaining the credibility of medical education in the country.

The broader implications of this debate extend beyond the immediate concerns of NEET PG 2025. It raises fundamental questions about the methods used to evaluate candidates in high-stakes examinations and the responsibilities of governing bodies to ensure fairness. The normalization process, while intended to address logistical challenges, has become a lightning rod for criticism, with many questioning its reliability and efficacy. As the controversy unfolds, it is clear that the issue is not merely about the mechanics of an examination but about the values that underpin the education system itself.

The calls for reform are not without precedent. Other competitive exams in India have faced similar scrutiny, prompting changes to ensure greater transparency and fairness. The NEET PG debate could serve as a catalyst for broader discussions about examination policies and the need for continuous improvement in evaluation methodologies. For medical aspirants, the stakes are personal and immediate, but for policymakers and educators, the lessons from this controversy could inform the design of future examinations across disciplines.

As the clock ticks toward June 15, the NBEMS finds itself at a crossroads. The decision to stick with the two-shift format or revert to a single session will have far-reaching consequences, not only for the candidates but also for the credibility of the institution itself. For now, the voices of dissent continue to grow louder, demanding action to address the concerns of fairness and transparency that have cast a shadow over one of India’s most critical examinations. Whether these calls will lead to meaningful change or simply fade into the background remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the debate over NEET PG 2025 has sparked a conversation that cannot be ignored.