The Supreme Court sought a detailed affidavit from the Central government in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses (NEET-PG) 2025, applicable to admissions for the 2025–26 academic session.
The plea questions a January 13 notification issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which stated that the cut-off reduction was carried out on the directions of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Under the revised norms, the qualifying score for the general category has been lowered to 103 from the earlier 276, while for SC, ST, and OBC candidates, the cut-off has been reduced to minus 40 from 235.
A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that the issue raised concerns the maintenance of academic standards in postgraduate medical education. “This is about standards. The question is whether those standards are being compromised,” the Bench remarked during the hearing.
The court’s observations came after Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the matter relates to postgraduate medical seats and that all candidates involved are already qualified medical doctors. However, the Bench expressed surprise at the drastic reduction in qualifying marks. “We were stunned to see why this method was adopted. These are all regular doctors,” the court noted.
In response, counsel appearing in the matter submitted that the rationale behind lowering the cut-off was to ensure that no postgraduate medical seats remain vacant. The petition, however, challenges this justification, arguing that the NBEMS notification permits candidates with negligible or no demonstrable merit to become eligible for postgraduate admissions.
According to the plea, the reduction in minimum qualifying standards is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It further contends that such a move effectively dismantles merit-based selection at the highest level of medical education, institutionalises sub-standard competence, and poses a serious and foreseeable risk to patient safety and public health.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that qualifying marks in postgraduate medical admissions can be relaxed only under exceptional circumstances and even then, by a marginal extent of 5–6 percentiles. He submitted that existing regulations clearly prescribe the 50th percentile as the minimum qualifying standard, determined with reference to the highest marks obtained. “You cannot reduce it all the way down to minus 40 percentile,” he argued.
When the Centre contended that postgraduate admissions are distinct from undergraduate admissions, Sankaranarayanan countered by citing earlier Supreme Court judgments, asserting that higher levels of education demand higher academic standards, not lower ones.
The Supreme Court has now sought a comprehensive response from the Centre on the rationale and legality of the decision. The matter will be taken up for further hearing after the affidavit is filed.
