Centre Defends NEET PG Cutoff Reduction in Supreme Court Affidavit
The Union government has submitted a detailed affidavit to the Supreme Court defending its decision to lower the qualifying percentile for NEET PG 2025. In its submission, the Centre argued that the national postgraduate medical entrance test serves primarily as a ranking mechanism rather than an assessment of clinical proficiency. The government emphasised that the exam is designed to allocate limited postgraduate seats based on merit, not to certify a candidate’s practical medical abilities.
Exam Purpose and Candidate Eligibility
According to the affidavit, NEET PG scores reflect relative performance and the specific structure of the examination. The government asserted that a lower percentile score cannot be interpreted as evidence of clinical incompetence. All candidates who appear for the exam are already licensed MBBS graduates and are fully qualified to practise medicine independently. The MBBS degree itself establishes the minimum eligibility threshold, and the postgraduate entrance test merely sequences candidates according to their performance.
Addressing Patient Safety Concerns
The Centre dismissed concerns about patient safety as misleading. The affidavit outlined several safeguards that ensure quality medical care during postgraduate training:
- Postgraduate programmes span three years of structured, supervised training
- Trainee doctors work under the constant oversight of senior faculty members and specialists
- Final competency is rigorously evaluated through MD/MS examinations, which require a minimum of 50 percent marks separately in both theory and practical components
These measures, the government argued, provide robust protection for patients while allowing postgraduate trainees to develop their skills progressively under expert guidance.
Vacant Seats and the Rationale for Reduction
The decision to lower the cutoff stemmed from an alarming number of unfilled positions across the country. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission jointly assessed the situation and concluded that intervention was necessary. Key figures from the affidavit highlight the scale of the issue:
- Approximately 70,000 postgraduate seats were available for the 2025-26 academic session
- Over 224,000 candidates appeared for the entrance examination
- After the second round of counselling, 9,621 seats remained vacant out of 31,742 seats under the All India Quota
- Of these vacancies, 5,213 seats were in government medical colleges, including those under AIQ and DNB programmes
The cutoff reduction brought an additional 100,054 candidates into the eligibility pool for the third counselling round, raising the total number of eligible aspirants to 228,170. Following this third round, only 2,988 seats remained unfilled, demonstrating the effectiveness of the measure in addressing the vacancy crisis.
Precedent for Percentile Adjustments
The government noted that percentile reductions are not unprecedented. Since NEET PG was introduced in 2017, qualifying percentiles have been adjusted periodically under exceptional circumstances. In 2023, the qualifying percentile was reduced to zero across all categories specifically to prevent seats from going waste. This established practice reflects the government’s commitment to optimising the utilisation of medical education infrastructure.
Policy Decision and Limited Judicial Review
The Centre urged the court to recognise this matter as a policy decision falling within the executive domain. Judicial review, the affidavit argued, should remain limited unless the decision is demonstrably arbitrary or unconstitutional. The government maintained that the percentile adjustment meets the test of reasonableness and serves legitimate public policy objectives.
Resource Optimisation and Public Investment
The affidavit highlighted the substantial public investment in postgraduate medical education. Leaving seats vacant would constitute a significant waste of financial resources and training capacity, ultimately harming healthcare delivery across the country. The government characterised the percentile reduction as a proportionate administrative response aimed at preventing this waste while simultaneously expanding the pool of specialised healthcare providers.
Importantly, the Centre clarified that seat allocation continues to follow merit and candidate preference even after the cutoff adjustment. The reduction only expands the candidate pool for consideration; it does not compromise the selectivity of the allocation process. Academic standards remain intact, and the quality of postgraduate medical education is preserved through the rigorous training and assessment frameworks already in place.
The affidavit concludes that this measured approach balances the need to fill vacant seats with the imperative of maintaining educational integrity, ultimately strengthening the healthcare system’s capacity to serve patients across India.
