Supreme Court to Review NEET-PG 2025-26 Cut-Off Changes: What It Means for Medical Education

Supreme Court's Examination of NEET-PG Cut-Off

New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it will assess the implications of the significant decrease in qualifying marks for NEET-PG 2025-26 on the quality of postgraduate medical education.

During the proceedings, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe addressed several petitions contesting the lowered percentile cut-off for the ongoing academic year.

"Our primary concern is the potential negative impact on educational quality. You must demonstrate that this drastic cut-off reduction will minimally affect educational standards. While it is true that this differs from MBBS entry, it is still a postgraduate level, and applicants are already qualified doctors. We need to deliberate on this matter," the court remarked.

Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General representing the Centre, cited the government's affidavit, explaining that the decision was influenced by existing vacancies.

She argued that the NEET-PG examination does not assess minimum clinical competence since candidates already hold MBBS degrees, and its purpose is to rank candidates for limited available seats.

Justice Narasimha acknowledged the Union's justification regarding NEET-PG not being an entry exam for MBBS, yet emphasized the need to evaluate the consequences of the cut-off reduction.

The court scheduled the next hearing for March 24.

The petitioners are challenging a notice from January 13 issued by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which lowered the minimum qualifying percentile cut-off for the third round of NEET PG 2025-2026 counselling.

The Union health ministry's director general stated in an affidavit that the petitioners' challenge relates to an academic and policy decision made by competent authorities under the National Medical Commission Act 2019, aimed at public interest and expert regulation.

"It is important to note that the reduction of the NEET-PG qualifying percentile is not without precedent. Since NEET-PG's inception in 2017, reductions have been made in appropriate circumstances to avoid seat wastage. In the 2023 academic year, the qualifying percentile was even reduced to zero across all categories. Thus, the current decision aligns with established policy and administrative practices," the affidavit stated.

The Centre further explained that NEET-PG scores reflect relative performance and examination design, which should not be interpreted as indicative of clinical incompetence.

"The NEET-PG's purpose is not to certify minimum competence, which is already established by the MBBS qualification, but to create a merit list for the allocation of limited postgraduate seats," it added.

The Centre clarified that candidates must possess a recognized MBBS degree and complete a compulsory rotating internship to be eligible for NEET-PG.

For the 2025-26 academic session, approximately 70,000 seats are available, with 2,24,029 candidates competing, including 31,742 seats under the All-India Quota (AIQ) across various specialties.

After the second round of NEET-PG counselling, 9,621 AIQ seats remained unfilled, with 5,213 vacancies in government medical colleges alone (including AIQ and DNB seats). This situation illustrates that the cut-off reduction was not intended to favor private institutions but to prevent significant seat vacancies in government-funded programs.

The government emphasized that courts typically avoid intervening in academic and policy decisions made by expert bodies unless such decisions are shown to be arbitrary, malicious, or in violation of statutory or constitutional provisions.

Previously, the NBEMS informed the Supreme Court that 95,913 additional candidates became eligible for NEET-PG 2025 counselling following the cut-off reduction.

According to the NBEMS notice, the NEET PG cut-off for the general category has been lowered to the seventh percentile from 50.

Petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court by social worker Harisharan Devgan, Dr. Saurav Kumar, Dr. Lakshya Mittal, and Dr. Akash Soni, arguing that the cut-off reduction infringes upon articles 14 and 21.