New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday sought a detailed response from the Centre on a petition challenging the steep reduction in qualifying cut-offs for NEET-PG 2025–26, observing that the issue goes to the standards of medical education and examinations.
A Bench of Justices P. S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe remarked during the hearing, “The question is whether those standards are being compromised,” and expressed surprise over the manner in which the cut-offs were revised so drastically.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
What the case is about
Last month, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) made sweeping changes to NEET-PG qualifying criteria:
- For reserved categories, the cut-off was lowered from the 40th percentile to zero percentile, with the minimum qualifying score falling from 235 out of 800 to −40.
- For General and EWS candidates, the cut-off was reduced from the 50th to the 7th percentile.
- For Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), it was cut from the 45th to the 5th percentile.
The decision has been challenged through a public interest litigation (PIL), which argues that such sweeping relaxations violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, undermining equality, merit, and the right to life.
Petitioners’ argument
The petitioners contend that lowering eligibility standards in postgraduate medical education is arbitrary and unconstitutional, weakens merit-based selection at the highest level of training, and creates a foreseeable risk to patient safety and public health.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel argued that the governing regulations set the minimum qualifying standard at the 50th percentile, determined with reference to the highest marks scored. “You cannot go all the way down to minus 40,” he submitted.
Centre’s stand
The Centre defended the revision, stating that the relaxation was intended to fill nearly 18,000 vacant postgraduate seats across medical institutions. India currently has around 57,000 PG seats in government and private colleges combined.
Responding to this justification, the Bench observed, “We were stunned to see why this method was adopted. These are all regular doctors,” signalling that while seat utilisation matters, compromising standards may not be acceptable.
What happens next
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to file a detailed written reply. The outcome will shape not only the trajectory of NEET-PG counselling, but also clarify how flexible minimum eligibility standards can be in postgraduate medical education.
The bigger picture
At its core, the case pits seat availability against educational quality. A strict judicial stance could curb broad relaxations in future cut-offs, while acceptance of the Centre’s rationale may prompt policymakers to seek new balances between capacity utilisation and academic standards.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
