Summary
Candidates allege discrepancies in their scores and have called for the immediate release of raw marks, official answer keys, and recorded responses
The legal challenge comes even as the NBEMS recently released the merit list for the 50% All India Quota (AIQ) seats without addressing mounting concerns over the delayed release of the answer key
The controversy surrounding the NEET PG 2025 examination has intensified, with a group of aspirants filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court demanding transparency and clarity on the marking system used by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS). Candidates allege discrepancies in their scores and have called for the immediate release of raw marks, official answer keys, and recorded responses.
The legal challenge comes even as the NBEMS recently released the merit list for the 50% All India Quota (AIQ) seats without addressing mounting concerns over the delayed release of the answer key. A week ago, the Board had assured candidates that the NEET PG 2025 answer key would be published “shortly”, but no such document has been released to date. The delay has fueled further suspicion among candidates who are demanding greater accountability from the examination body.
Adding to the frustration, NBEMS had initially promised to upload the response sheets and answer keys for all candidates, but later revised its statement, saying only question IDs would be published. This move has been criticized by students and advocacy groups who argue that it compromises the transparency of the evaluation process.
Social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter), have seen a surge in posts from NEET PG aspirants raising concerns over possible score manipulation. One prominent account advocating for medical aspirants stated, “This case is in its early stages, and students are ready to continue their legal fight for justice.”
This is not the first time NBEMS has come under fire. In previous years, the board was criticized for last-minute changes to the exam structure, and for introducing a normalization method for multiple exam shifts — a practice that many believe introduced inconsistencies in state merit lists used during counselling. In fact, the Supreme Court last year observed similar discrepancies and directed the NBEMS to explain the normalization process in detail.
As the legal proceedings begin, aspirants are hoping the judiciary will step in to ensure a fair and transparent examination process. Meanwhile, all eyes remain on the NBEMS to issue a clear and timely response to the demands of thousands of affected candidates.
Last updated on 28 Aug 2025
