The Supreme Court on Friday directed the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to explain its unprecedented decision to reduce NEET-PG 2025 qualifying percentiles to as low as zero, amid concerns of seat wastage and standards dilution. The Court has sought a detailed affidavit and will hear the matter in two weeks.
The Supreme Court has asked the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to file an affidavit justifying its decision to drastically lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26 admissions, a move that has triggered widespread concern over dilution of postgraduate medical education standards.
A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued the direction on Friday while hearing a plea challenging the revised cut-offs. The court observed that while unfilled seats are a concern, such reductions raise important questions about maintaining academic rigour.
“On one hand, we have to see that seats should not get wasted. At the same time, there is pressure that candidates are not coming, so please reduce the cutoff,” the bench remarked, adding, “Then the argument will be that the standards are being lowered and the counter-argument is that seats are going waste. So, somewhere there has to be a balance.”
The matter has been posted for hearing after two weeks.
The petition has been filed by social worker Harisharan Devgan along with doctors Saurav Kumar, Lakshya Mittal and Akash Soni. It challenges the NBEMS notification which reduced the NEET-PG qualifying percentile to zero across all categories for Round 3 of counselling. For the general category, the cut-off was brought down to seven percentile from the earlier 50 percentile.
According to the plea, this relaxation allows even candidates scoring negative marks—such as minus 40 out of 800—to participate in counselling. This, the petitioners argue, undermines merit and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan contended that qualifying marks in postgraduate medical admissions cannot be relaxed arbitrarily.
“Standards need to be stricter at the postgraduate level,” he submitted, stating that such sweeping dilution would have serious implications for medical education.
The petition also asserts that eligibility criteria cannot be changed after the commencement of the selection process, as it disrupts the legitimate expectations of aspirants who had prepared and made decisions based on the original cut-offs.
On February 4, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Union of India, NBEMS, the National Medical Commission (NMC), and other respondents in the matter.
The bench acknowledged the need to balance between avoiding seat wastage and upholding educational standards, while declining to take a position without hearing from the authorities.
The NBEMS decision has drawn flak from multiple sections of the medical community, who termed it “unprecedented” and “illogical.” Critics argue that postgraduate medical education is a specialised and demanding field where minimum academic competence must not be compromised for administrative convenience.
The Court’s order directing NBEMS to file a comprehensive affidavit is expected to shed light on the rationale behind this decision and whether it aligns with broader policy objectives and statutory mandates.
