The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant judicial step by addressing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the drastic reduction in the NEET-PG 2025 qualifying cut-off percentiles—a move that has ignited debate over academic standards in postgraduate medical admissions.
Earlier this year, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) issued a notification on January 13 reducing the NEET-PG cut-off requirements for the 2025-26 academic session. The new criteria lowered the general category cut-off percentile from the 50th to the 7th percentile, while reserved categories saw cut-offs drop from the 40th percentile to even zero or negative percentile levels in certain cases.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notices to the Central Government, NBEMS, and the National Medical Commission (NMC), seeking their detailed responses. The petitioners, including medical professionals and social workers, argue that this steep reduction undermines merit and compromises the standards of medical education. They maintain that postgraduate medical programmes demand robust academic rigour to ensure competent healthcare professionals.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court raised serious concerns about the logic and implications behind the revised cut-offs, remarking that the matter directly relates to academic standards and fairness. In a striking observation, the Bench stated it was “stunned to see why this method was adopted,” especially given that the candidates involved are already qualified doctors. This comment highlights the Court’s unease over allowing candidates with extremely low or even negative scores to qualify for postgraduate training.
The PIL contends that the reduction not only deviates from established regulations—which prescribe a minimum qualifying standard of the 50th percentile—but also risks patient safety and public health by diluting essential competence requirements. It invokes Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution, arguing that arbitrary dilution of eligibility norms is unconstitutional.
The government has defended the move by citing the large number of vacant postgraduate seats—reportedly over 18,000—and asserting that reducing the cut-off is necessary to fill training positions and optimise the medical workforce. However, the Court directed that all parties explain the rationale behind such extreme adjustments, underscoring that educational standards must be balanced with broader policy goals.
The case is set for further hearings, and its outcome could significantly influence future NEET-PG counselling processes, eligibility norms, and admission standards in India’s medical education system. As stakeholders watch closely, the Supreme Court’s scrutiny indicates that academic quality and merit will remain central to the debate over postgraduate medical admissions.