NEET-PG – Supreme Court to Examine Pleas Over Cut-Off Reduction Decision

NEET-PG –  The Supreme Court is set to hear a series of petitions on Tuesday challenging the decision to lower the qualifying percentile for the NEET-PG 2025–26 examination. The issue has sparked a wider debate over academic standards, fairness in admissions, and the utilisation of available postgraduate medical seats across the country.

Concerns Raised Over Cut-Off Reduction

During an earlier brief hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued that the reduction in the qualifying percentile was unnecessary. He maintained that a sufficient number of candidates had already cleared the examination to fill all postgraduate seats.

According to the petitioners, the real issue behind vacant seats is not a shortage of eligible candidates but the inability of many qualified students to afford high tuition fees. They contended that lowering the cut-off does not address the root cause and instead risks undermining merit-based admissions.

Support for Government’s Decision

In contrast, senior advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for a candidate supporting the reduction, defended the government’s move. He argued that lowering the qualifying percentile would not compromise academic standards, as all candidates must have already passed the MBBS examination, which ensures a basic level of competence.

The Centre has also backed this view, stating that the decision was made after consulting expert bodies. It emphasized that the step was necessary to address a significant number of unfilled seats and to ensure that medical infrastructure and training opportunities are fully utilised.

Court Defers Detailed Examination

A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe did not delve into the merits of the case during the initial hearing. Instead, the matter was scheduled for a more detailed examination, with all arguments to be considered comprehensively.

Earlier, the bench had issued notices to key authorities, including the Union government, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, the National Medical Commission, and the Medical Counselling Committee, seeking their responses on the issue.

Petition Highlights Constitutional Concerns

The plea, filed by advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, challenges the decision on constitutional grounds. It argues that reducing the qualifying percentile to extremely low, zero, or even negative levels after the declaration of results and completion of two counselling rounds is arbitrary and violates the principles of equality and fairness.

The petition warns that allowing candidates with such low scores into postgraduate medical programs could have serious implications for patient safety and the overall quality of healthcare. It also stresses that altering eligibility criteria after the admission process has begun is fundamentally unfair to candidates who prepared under the original rules.

Government Cites Vacant Seats Data

In its response, the government has presented data indicating that a large number of postgraduate seats remain vacant each year. For the 2025–26 academic session, approximately 70,000 seats are available, including over 31,000 under the All-India Quota. Of these, more than 9,600 seats remained unfilled after the second round of counselling.

Officials estimate that nearly 20,000 seats could remain vacant nationwide if corrective measures are not taken. The reduction in the qualifying percentile, according to the government, has made over one lakh additional candidates eligible for the next round of counselling without altering the relative merit ranking.

Debate Over Academic Autonomy

The Centre has also argued that decisions related to academic standards and admission policies fall within the domain of expert bodies and should not be interfered with unless proven to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. It pointed out that similar reductions in qualifying percentiles have been implemented in previous years, including a notable instance in 2023.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the matter in detail, the outcome is expected to have significant implications for medical education policy, admission processes, and the balance between maintaining standards and ensuring optimal use of available resources