Supreme Court dismisses NEET-PG 2026 re-test plea, imposes ₹25,000 cost
The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 3, 2026) dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the re-conduct of the NEET-PG 2026 examination, imposing a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner and referring the petitioner's lawyer to the Bar Council of India for disciplinary action.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe expressed displeasure over the filing of the petition, observing that it appeared to be a misuse of the judicial process. The court noted that the petitioner, who was not affected by the alleged irregularities, had approached the court without proper justification.
The petition claimed that the medical entrance test, conducted for admission to postgraduate medical courses, violated a May 2025 Supreme Court order that mandated the exam be held in a single shift. The petitioner's lawyer argued that about 2,500 candidates at two examination centres in Jaipur could not complete the test due to an internal power outage, and that the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) had scheduled a supplementary examination for these affected candidates on September 5.
During the hearing, the Bench criticised the lawyer for soliciting complaints from aspirants on social media and filing petitions on their behalf. "It appears this person has become a full-time PIL litigant. Wherever exams are conducted, you go on to file petitions," the court told the counsel. "Why did you file a petition earlier to stay? Is it at your instance or is the petitioner really interested in filing it? We will ask the Bar Council of India to take serious action against you."
NBEMS counsel informed the court that the petitioners, hailing from Noida and Punjab, had not been affected by the disruption, which was limited to two of the 1,111 examination centres across India due to the power failure. The counsel also pointed out that the lawyer had been soliciting comments and cases from aspirants on social media, creating unnecessary confusion.
Justice Aradhe asked whether the petitioners themselves intended to appear for the exam, to which the counsel replied in the negative. Justice Narasimha further observed, "How are you concerned about so many students calling you and informing you? Do you realise the kind of harm you are causing this country?"
The court ultimately dismissed the PIL, imposing a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner as a deterrent against frivolous litigation. It also directed that the lawyer's conduct be brought to the notice of the Bar Council of India for appropriate action.
