More than 800 candidates who appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses (NEET PG) have changed their status from Indian to non-resident Indian (NRI) for the 2025–26 admission cycle, triggering renewed debate over equity, merit and affordability in India’s medical education system.
Data released by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) show that 811 candidates opted for conversion to the NRI category to participate in the third round of postgraduate counselling. The move allows candidates to access NRI quota seats, which typically have lower cut-offs but significantly higher fees.
Seats under the NRI quota are among the most expensive in medical education. However, competition is thinner than even the management quota, effectively opening a pathway for lower-ranked candidates with strong financial backing to secure seats in high-demand clinical disciplines.
Two routes to NRI eligibility
According to the MCC list, candidates approved for conversion fall into two distinct categories. The first includes those who are themselves NRIs or children of NRIs — 113 candidates in total. The second, much larger group comprises 698 candidates who qualified by declaring themselves wards of first- or second-degree NRI relatives.
This second category has drawn particular scrutiny. Under expanded eligibility norms, candidates can now claim NRI status through sponsorship by close relatives such as uncles, aunts or grandparents living abroad, even if their parents or siblings are not NRIs.
The score distribution highlights the advantage offered by this route. Among candidates in the first category, the lowest NEET PG score was 82 out of 800, or just over 10%. In the second category, the lowest score dropped to 28, translating to barely 3.5%.
Low ranks, high costs
The MCC data also reveal that 66% of candidates in the first category scored below 215 marks, placing them beyond 1.5 lakh rank. In the second category, the proportion was even higher, with over 60% of candidates ranked below the same threshold.
Despite these low ranks, candidates admitted under the NRI quota can secure seats in sought-after clinical branches by paying steep fees. Annual tuition for NRI quota postgraduate seats can range from ₹45 lakh to ₹95 lakh, depending on the specialty, state and whether the institution is a deemed university.
Medical education experts say this effectively creates a parallel admissions track where financial capacity can outweigh academic performance.
Why the system allows conversion
Supporters of the policy argue that without such conversions, many NRI quota seats would remain vacant. In earlier years, unfilled NRI seats were often converted into management quota seats, where fees are substantially lower — a scenario private medical colleges have opposed.
Courts have, in multiple instances, accepted the argument that private medical institutions should not be forced to absorb financial losses due to vacant high-fee seats. This judicial reasoning has gradually led to a broader interpretation of who qualifies as an NRI ward.
As a result, the definition of NRI has expanded beyond immediate family, enabling candidates to use extended relatives as sponsors.
Merit versus access debate
Critics, however, say the practice undermines the principle of merit-based admissions in a system already under strain. They argue that allowing candidates with very low scores to enter clinical specialties solely on the basis of payment deepens inequality and risks long-term consequences for medical standards.
Student groups and education policy analysts have also raised concerns about transparency, questioning how first- and second-degree relationships are verified and whether the process is vulnerable to misuse.
Online commentary following the MCC disclosure reflected public unease, with several voices questioning why NRI status should extend beyond NRIs and their children at all.
A recurring policy flashpoint
The latest data have once again brought the NRI quota debate to the forefront at a time when competition for postgraduate medical seats remains intense and fees continue to rise. With each counselling cycle, the number of candidates opting for conversion has increased, suggesting that the route is becoming an established strategy rather than an exception.
As admissions for 2025–26 move into their final stages, the spotlight is back on regulators and policymakers to decide whether the balance between institutional viability and meritocracy has tilted too far — and whether tighter definitions or safeguards are needed to restore confidence in the system.
About the author – Rehan Khan is a law student and legal journalist with a keen interest in cybercrime, digital fraud, and emerging technology laws. He writes on the intersection of law, cybersecurity, and online safety, focusing on developments that impact individuals and institutions in India.
