Supreme Court Petitioned Over Controversial NEET PG 2025-26 Cut-Off Reduction
A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the decision by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to drastically lower the qualifying cut-off marks for the NEET PG 2025-26 examination. The petition argues that the move is arbitrary and poses a serious threat to merit-based selection, patient safety, and the overall standards of medical education in the country.
The legal challenge comes in response to an official notice issued by NBEMS on January 13, which revised the eligibility criteria for postgraduate medical admissions. According to the petitioners, the revised cut-off has been reduced to an unprecedented low, effectively rendering the entrance test meaningless by allowing candidates with extremely poor scores—including negative marks—to qualify for admission.
Who Filed the Petition
The PIL has been jointly filed by social worker Harisharan Devgan, neurosurgeon Saurabh Kumar, Dr. Lakshya Mittal (President of the United Doctors Front), and Dr. Akash Soni, a member of the World Medical Association. The petitioners contend that the NBEMS notice is not only arbitrary but also violates fundamental constitutional guarantees, specifically Articles 14 and 21, which ensure equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty.
Their argument rests on the principle that medicine is not an ordinary profession. It deals directly with human life, physical integrity, and dignity. Allowing underqualified candidates into postgraduate medical programs, they argue, could have catastrophic consequences for patient care and public health.
Key Details of the Controversial Decision
- On January 13, NBEMS issued a revised notice altering the qualifying cut-off for NEET PG 2025-26.
- The revised cut-off was lowered dramatically, with the minimum qualifying score for reserved category candidates set as low as -40 marks.
- This effectively meant that even candidates scoring negative marks could be considered eligible for postgraduate medical admission.
- The decision sparked immediate backlash from medical associations, doctors, and aspiring candidates.
- Critics argue that such a move compromises patient safety, endangers public health, and tarnishes the credibility of the medical profession.
Constitutional and Legal Concerns Raised
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, describes the cut-off reduction as a constitutional violation. The petitioners assert that diluting merit standards for postgraduate medical education is a direct assault on the principles enshrined in the Constitution. They emphasize that the decision undermines the very purpose of a competitive examination, reducing it to a mere formality.
Furthermore, the petitioners have pointed out that the relaxation of merit criteria at the postgraduate level contradicts the statutory provisions of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. This legislation was designed to uphold rigorous standards in medical education and ensure that only qualified individuals are entrusted with the responsibility of patient care.
Why the Decision Is Being Criticized
The core of the criticism lies in the belief that filling vacant seats should never come at the cost of educational quality and professional competence. The petitioners argue that the decision institutionalizes the decline of professional standards in a field where lives are at stake. They stress that the move sends a dangerous message—that merit and competence can be sacrificed for administrative convenience.
Medical professionals and student organizations have voiced strong opposition, stating that the revised cut-off undermines years of rigorous training and hard work by deserving candidates. It also raises serious questions about the future of healthcare delivery, as poorly trained doctors could end up handling complex medical cases without the necessary expertise.
The Road Ahead
The Supreme Court is now expected to examine the validity of the NBEMS decision. The petitioners are seeking the court’s intervention to strike down the notice and restore a merit-based evaluation process that upholds the integrity of postgraduate medical education. They argue that allowing this decision to stand would set a dangerous precedent, not just for medical admissions but for the entire framework of professional education in India.
The case highlights a broader debate within the medical community: the tension between increasing access to education and maintaining high standards of professional competence. While the intention to fill vacant seats is understandable, the petitioners insist that it cannot justify compromising the quality of healthcare that citizens receive.
As the matter moves forward, stakeholders across the medical fraternity will be watching closely. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how postgraduate medical admissions are conducted in the future and whether merit remains the cornerstone of the selection process.
