NEET-PG – Supreme Court Questions Cut-Off Reduction Decision

NEET-PG – The Supreme Court has sought a detailed explanation from examination authorities regarding the recent reduction in NEET-PG qualifying cut-offs.-

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences to file an affidavit clarifying the rationale behind its decision to significantly lower the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26. The direction came during the hearing of multiple petitions that have challenged the move, raising concerns about its impact on postgraduate medical admissions.

Court Seeks Clarity on Rationale

A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that the court needed to be assured that the decision was not influenced by any improper considerations. The judges indicated that their primary concern was to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.

The matter relates to a January 13 notification issued by the examination body, which revised the minimum qualifying percentile for candidates eligible to participate in the third round of counselling. The court noted that it would carefully examine the explanation provided by the Centre and relevant authorities before determining whether the decision was justified or flawed.

Details of the Revised Cut-Off

Under the revised criteria, the qualifying marks for candidates in the general category were brought down from 276 to 103. For candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, the cut-off was reduced from 235 to minus 40 marks. This effectively lowered the qualifying percentile for reserved categories to zero for the upcoming counselling round.

Petitioners have argued that such a substantial reduction alters the competitive nature of the examination and may set a precedent that affects the credibility of postgraduate medical admissions. They claim that permitting candidates with extremely low scores to proceed in the admission process could weaken academic standards.

Petitioners Raise Concerns

Those challenging the notification submitted before the court that the move appears arbitrary and inconsistent with established norms. According to them, postgraduate medical education demands rigorous standards, and lowering eligibility thresholds so sharply could have long-term consequences for the healthcare system.

The petitioners also expressed apprehension that admitting candidates with minimal qualifying performance may ultimately affect the quality of patient care. They emphasized that professional standards in medical education are directly linked to public trust and safety.

Examination Body’s Justification

In its defence, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences informed the court that a substantial number of postgraduate seats remain vacant across the country. According to the Board, more than 18,000 seats have not been filled, prompting a reassessment of the qualifying percentile to ensure optimal utilisation of available capacity.

The Board further stated that the adjustment was aimed at facilitating admissions in the third counselling round and addressing the gap between available seats and eligible candidates. Officials argued that the change was made within the framework of existing regulations and was intended to prevent wastage of medical education resources.

Next Steps in the Case

The Supreme Court indicated that it would review the explanations submitted by the Centre and related authorities before reaching a conclusion. The bench remarked that it would assess whether the revision was excessively disproportionate or lacked reasonable justification.

The case has drawn attention within the medical education community, as the outcome may influence future policies regarding entrance examinations and counselling procedures. With postgraduate admissions directly affecting the country’s healthcare workforce, the court’s decision is likely to have wider implications.

Further hearings are expected after the required affidavits are filed.