Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on NEET PG Cutoff Reduction Decision
The Supreme Court has requested a formal response from the central government regarding the contentious decision to lower the NEET PG 2025-26 qualifying cutoff scores. The next hearing in this matter is scheduled for Friday, February 6, 2026.
During the proceedings, a bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe examined a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the move to reduce the eligibility percentile. The bench has directed the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to submit its reply before the next date of hearing.
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed by a group of petitioners including social worker Harisharan Devgan, neurosurgeon Saurabh Kumar, Dr. Lakshya Mittal (President of the United Doctors Front), and Dr. Akash Soni, who is associated with the World Medical Association. The petitioners have contested the official notice that drastically brought down the qualifying percentile, reportedly to zero or even negative levels in certain categories.
According to the petitioners, such an unprecedented reduction in cutoff scores is not only arbitrary but also legally unsustainable. They argue that the decision undermines the integrity of the postgraduate medical entrance examination and reduces it to a mere procedural formality.
Constitutional Violations Alleged
The petitioners have asserted that lowering the eligibility benchmarks for postgraduate medical education violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty. The petitioners contend that diluting merit-based standards at the postgraduate level contravenes both these constitutional safeguards.
Furthermore, the plea argues that the decision runs contrary to the statutory mandate outlined in the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The Act lays down clear provisions regarding the maintenance of educational standards in medical institutions across the country.
Concerns Over Patient Safety and Public Health
The petitioners have raised serious concerns about the broader implications of this decision. They argue that reducing the qualifying cutoff compromises patient safety, jeopardizes public health outcomes, and diminishes the dignity of the medical profession. The plea emphasizes that postgraduate medical education requires a high level of competence, and admitting candidates with minimal qualifying scores could have dangerous consequences for healthcare delivery.
The decision to lower the cutoff was reportedly taken to fill vacant seats in medical colleges. However, the petitioners argue that this approach effectively eliminates merit as a criterion and turns a competitive examination into an administrative exercise. They maintain that filling seats should not come at the cost of compromising the quality of medical education and, ultimately, patient care.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter highlights the significance of maintaining rigorous standards in medical education. With the next hearing set for February 6, all eyes will be on the central government’s response and the court’s subsequent direction on this critical issue affecting thousands of medical aspirants and the healthcare system at large.
