The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday intervened in a high-profile dispute over the drastic reduction in qualifying cut-off percentiles for the NEET-PG 2025-26 postgraduate medical entrance examination, issuing notices to the government and relevant authorities and listing the matter for further hearing on Friday, February 6.
Top Court Seeks Responses on Drastic Cut-Off Drop
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe directed the Centre, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), the National Medical Commission (NMC), and the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to file responses within a week on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the decision to sharply lower qualifying percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26 admissions.
What Changed in the Cut-Off Rules?
Under the NBEMS notification dated January 13, 2026, qualifying percentiles for the NEET-PG exam were slashed far below traditional benchmarks to address a large number of vacant postgraduate medical seats left after the first two rounds of counselling.
-
General/EWS candidates: Cut from the 50th percentile (roughly 276 marks out of 800) to the 7th percentile (around 103 marks).
-
General-PwBD: Reduced to the 5th percentile (about 90 marks).
-
SC/ST/OBC (including PwBD): Slashed to the 0th percentile, meaning even negative scores (-40) now qualify.
Critics note this unprecedented move would allow candidates with very low or even negative scores to enter postgraduate counselling rounds — a shift that drew sharp opposition from medical bodies and student groups alike.
PIL Asserts Constitutional and Public Health Concerns
The PIL, filed by social activist Harisharan Devgan and doctors Saurav Kumar, Lakshya Mittal, and Akash Soni, argues that the cut-off reduction is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. They contend that such low eligibility standards jeopardise patient safety, public health, and the integrity of postgraduate medical education.
The petition also asserts that eligibility criteria should not be altered after aspirants have already prepared and competed based on originally notified cut-offs.
Medical Community’s Reaction and Ongoing Debate
Several sections of the medical community have labelled the NBEMS’ cut-off revision “unprecedented” and “illogical,” warning that it could dilute educational standards and undermine the merit-based nature of the NEET-PG process. Critics argue that allowing low-scoring candidates into specialist training threatens long-term healthcare quality and patient trust.
Supporters of the cut-off changes note that with over 18,000 seats vacant nationwide, the policy shift was aimed at increasing candidate eligibility for the third round of counselling to better utilise available training capacity.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court will take up the PIL again on February 6, when it will consider the responses from the Centre and other authorities before deciding how to proceed. The outcome could have significant implications for NEET-PG counselling, medical education standards, and policy around eligibility criteria in national competitive examinations.