The Supreme Court today sought a detailed affidavit from the Central government on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025 for the 2025-26 academic session. The plea questions a January 13 notice issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which stated that the reduction was made in accordance with the directions of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Under the revised criteria, the general category cut-off has been reduced to 103 from 276, while for SC, ST, and OBC categories, it has been brought down to minus 40 from the earlier 235.
A Bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that the matter involved questions related to standards. "This is about standards. The question is whether those standards are being compromised," the Bench remarked.
The observation came after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the case pertains to postgraduate medical seats and that all candidates involved are qualified doctors. However, the Court expressed surprise over the performance levels of the candidates.
"We were stunned to see why this method was adopted. These are all regular doctors," the Bench said. In response, a counsel submitted that the intention behind the decision was to ensure that no postgraduate seat remains vacant.
The plea before the top court challenges the NBEMS notice, arguing that it allows candidates with no demonstrable merit to become eligible for postgraduate medical admissions. It contends that the reduction of minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical education is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The petition further argues that the decision abolishes merit at the apex level of medical education, institutionalises sub-standard competence, and poses a direct and foreseeable threat to patient safety and public health.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that marks in postgraduate admissions cannot be relaxed except for exceptional reasons and even then, only to a limited extent of 5-6 percentiles. "The applicable regulation clearly provides that the minimum qualifying standard is the 50th percentile, which is to be determined with reference to the highest marks obtained. You cannot go all the way down to minus 40 percentile," he said.
When ASG Bhati submitted that there is a distinction between undergraduate and postgraduate seats, Sankaranarayanan countered by citing a previous Supreme Court judgment, stating that higher standards must apply at higher levels of education.