NEET-PG cut-off reduces sharply, Supreme Court seeks reply on PIL

The Supreme Court has issued a notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the reduction of the qualifying cut-off for the NEET-PG 2025–26 academic session, directing the Union government and the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to file their responses within a week. The matter is scheduled to be taken up for further hearing on Friday.

The petition challenges an NBEMS notification dated January 13, 2026, which reportedly lowered the qualifying cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025–26 to unusually low levels, including zero and even negative percentiles.

The PIL has been filed by social activist Harisharan Devgan along with doctors Saurav Kumar, Lakshya Mittal and Akash Soni.

The petitioners argue that the dilution of minimum eligibility standards for postgraduate medical education is arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

They have warned that such a move could seriously compromise patient safety, public health and the integrity of the medical profession. The plea also contends that reducing merit standards at the postgraduate level runs contrary to established legal principles and the statutory mandate of the National Medical Commission (NMC).

WHY THE CUT-OFF ISSUE MATTERS

NEET-PG is the sole national-level entrance examination for admission to MD, MS and PG Diploma courses across India. Conducted by NBEMS, the exam determines both eligibility and merit for postgraduate medical seats, which are limited in number and highly competitive.

Traditionally, candidates are required to secure a minimum qualifying percentile,50th percentile for general category candidates and 40th percentile for SC, ST and OBC candidates to be eligible for counselling. These thresholds are intended to ensure that only candidates meeting a basic academic standard enter specialised medical training.

WHAT CHANGED FOR THE 2025-26 SESSION

According to the petition, the January 2026 notification drastically lowered these qualifying percentiles to unprecedented levels, reportedly extending even to zero and negative scores, in an effort to fill vacant postgraduate seats.

While cut-off relaxations have been allowed in earlier years under exceptional circumstances, the petitioners argue that the extent of reduction this time is excessive and unprecedented.

CONCERNS RAISED BY PETITIONERS

The PIL highlights that postgraduate doctors are directly involved in critical patient care, including diagnosis, treatment and surgeries. Lowering entry standards at this stage, it argues, could weaken the quality of medical training and pose long-term risks to patient safety and public health.

The petition further states that maintaining minimum academic standards in postgraduate medical education is a statutory obligation under the NMC Act, and any deviation without a strong legal basis undermines the credibility of India’s medical education system.

The Supreme Court’s intervention is now expected to determine whether authorities can significantly relax merit standards to ensure seat occupancy, or whether academic quality and patient safety must remain paramount in postgraduate medical admissions.