The Supreme Court of India recently rejected a plea requesting a fresh NEET-PG 2026 examination for all candidates, citing that the petitioner’s counsel had solicited complaints via social media before submitting the petition. The Bench, comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, criticized the petitioners and their legal representative for seeking to disrupt the examination process.
Justice Narasimha questioned the petitioner’s counsel, accusing him of becoming a ‘full-time PIL litigant’ and warned that the Bar Council may be advised to take stringent action. He remarked, “You are a full-time PIL litigant? This person has become a full-time PIL litigant. Wherever examinations are conducted, you go on to file petitions … We will ask the Bar Council to take serious action.”
The plea was initiated following a power outage at two Jaipur centers, which hindered approximately 2,500 candidates from completing the NEET-PG examination on August 30. To address this, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) arranged a separate examination for these candidates on September 5. The petitioners argued for a re-examination for all candidates, citing a previous Supreme Court directive from May 2025, which mandated that NEET-PG should occur in a single shift.
During the proceedings, the NBEMS counsel revealed that none of the petitioners were among those affected at the Jaipur centers. Instead, the petitioners hailed from Noida and Punjab. The counsel for the petitioners insisted that issues were not confined to the Jaipur centers but had also occurred at 34 other locations.
Justice Narasimha demanded clarification on the counsel’s claims, at which point NBEMS counsel accused the petitioners’ lawyer of reaching out to affected candidates through social media. “His social media posts are with us. There are videos in which he says that if students have any problem, he is mentioning a matter on behalf of petitioner and they may contact him. Such havoc has been created that we are receiving representations from across India,” submitted NBEMS counsel.
This revelation prompted the Bench to further scrutinize the lawyer’s conduct. Justice Narasimha indicated that he would recommend the Bar Council investigate the matter. “Just for two more briefs, do you realize the kind of harm you are causing to the country?” he remarked.
Justice Narasimha also criticized the manner in which the urgent hearing was secured. “Look at how accessible this country is. See, you have the freedom and liberty to walk into the Chief Justice’s Court early in the morning and saying that there is an urgent matter. Acting on your statement, and without realizing that you were working on social media, the Chief Justice assigned the case to us and we are sitting at 4 pm to hear the matter, and you end up making a statement that people are complaining and then go on social media,” he remarked.
Justice Aradhe concurred, stating, “Let the Bar Council of India investigate him.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioners.
