Supreme Court Questions NEET PG Cut-off Reduction, Seeks NBEMS Response
The Supreme Court has intervened in the contentious decision to significantly lower the qualifying cut-off percentile for NEET PG 2025-26, demanding an official response from the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS). During the hearing held on Friday, the bench underscored the critical need to strike a balance between filling vacant postgraduate medical seats and preserving the integrity of medical education standards.
Court Demands Affidavit Within Two Weeks
A division bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed NBEMS to submit a sworn affidavit within fourteen days, explaining the rationale behind the drastic reduction in qualifying percentiles. The bench observed that while unfilled seats remain a concern, compromising on academic standards is equally unacceptable. The court’s remarks highlight the delicate equilibrium that regulatory bodies must maintain when addressing shortages in medical admissions.
Petitioners Raise Constitutional Concerns
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued that alterations to qualifying marks or cut-offs in postgraduate medical admissions should only occur under exceptional circumstances. He emphasized that standards at the postgraduate level ought to be more rigorous, not less. The petitioners contend that modifying eligibility criteria after the selection process has commenced violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty respectively.
Unprecedented Reduction in Qualifying Percentiles
The controversy stems from NBEMS’s decision to overhaul the qualifying percentile requirements after approximately 18,000 postgraduate medical seats remained vacant across the country. According to the official notice issued by the examination body, the qualifying cut-off for the General category was slashed dramatically—from 50 percentile to just 7 percentile. For candidates belonging to reserved categories, the threshold was reduced from 40 percentile to zero, effectively eliminating the qualifying barrier altogether.
Petitioners Highlight Impact on Candidates
Social activist Harisharan Devgan and other petitioners have pointed out that countless aspirants made critical career decisions and invested significant time in preparation based on the originally announced cut-offs. Changing the rules midway through the admission cycle, they argue, creates an unfair and unpredictable environment for candidates who adhered to the initial criteria. The petition emphasizes that such mid-process modifications undermine the principle of procedural fairness in competitive examinations.
Medical Community Raises Quality Concerns
Several sections of the medical fraternity have reacted strongly to the NBEMS decision, characterizing it as both unprecedented and irrational. Experts warn that such a steep reduction in qualifying standards could have long-term repercussions on the quality of postgraduate medical education and, consequently, on patient care standards. The move has sparked a broader debate about whether filling seats should take precedence over maintaining academic excellence in specialized medical training.
Next Hearing Scheduled
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing in this matter for two weeks from now. In the interim, NBEMS must provide a clear justification for its decision, particularly explaining how the revised cut-offs align with the twin objectives of maximizing seat utilization and upholding educational quality. The court’s scrutiny of this case signals that regulatory decisions affecting medical admissions will face increasing judicial oversight, especially when they involve significant deviations from established norms.
