The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences’ (NBEMS) decision to significantly lower the cut-off marks for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates in NEET-PG 2025, permitting students who scored as low as minus 40 out of 800 to participate in counselling.
The division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra dismissed the PIL filed by advocate Abhinav Gaur. During the hearing, the bench was informed that a similar petition had already been dismissed by the Delhi High Court on the ground that the issue fell within the domain of policymaking and was not amenable to judicial review. Additionally, it was brought to the court’s attention that a related petition is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
The petitioner had contended that NBEMS’s move was unconstitutional and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The plea criticised the “drastic” lowering of cut-offs, especially in the SC/ST/OBC category where the qualifying score was reduced from 235 to -40, arguing that it undermined the merit-based selection process that is vital for ensuring competent medical professionals in the country.
It further argued that the relaxation of qualifying marks may adversely affect public health and patient safety, citing the high academic rigour expected from medical practitioners. The petition also raised concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution, claiming that permitting candidates without the minimum qualifying threshold to enter postgraduate medical courses could compromise citizens’ fundamental right to health and life.
The PIL also drew attention to the lowered cut-offs in other categories: from 276 to 103 for the General (EWS) category and from 255 to 90 for the General-PwBD category.
Despite these arguments, the court found no grounds to interfere with the policy decision of the medical examination authority, especially in light of prior judicial pronouncements and ongoing proceedings in the apex court. The matter now rests with the Supreme Court for any further adjudication.
