NEET PG: SC to examine impact of cutoff reduction after centre maintains exam does not certify doctors' competence

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India today observed that it would have to examine the impact of the sharp reduction in the qualifying percentile for NEET PG 2025 on the quality of postgraduate medical education, even though the Union Government maintained that NEET PG is not an entry-level examination like MBBS and that candidates appearing for it are already qualified doctors.

Recently, the Union Government defended its decision before the apex court, stating that NEET-PG does not certify minimum competence, which is established by the MBBS qualification, but is merely a filtering mechanism for allocation of limited postgraduate seats.

Expressing concern over the standard of medical education, Division Bench Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe remarked, 

"Adversely affecting the quality of education is what we are more concerned about than anything. More than anything it is about the quality. You will have to satisfy us that the reduction of the cutoff so drastically, virtually bringing it to zero and non-existence... Though you are justified in saying that this is not like entry into MBBS, this is like a post-graduation. It stands on a different footing because those who apply are already doctors. But still in the context of competition we will have to reflect."

The Bench was hearing petitions challenging the January 13, 2026 notice issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which reduced the minimum qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET-PG 2025 counselling.

In its affidavit filed earlier, the Union Government stated that, "NEET-PG is not to certify minimum competence which stands established by the MBBS qualification itself of the candidates but to generate an inter se merit list for allocation of limited postgraduate seats. The NEET PG scores are a function of relative performance and examination design which cannot be construed as determinative of clinical incompetence."

Referring to the reasoning set out in the Centre's affidavit, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati in the present court session submitted that the decision to reduce the percentile was taken in view of vacancies in postgraduate seats. She reiterated that the examination does not certify minimum clinical competence since candidates have already obtained MBBS degrees, and that NEET-PG is meant to compare and filter candidates for allocation of limited seats.

However, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, raised the issue of fee disparity between government and private medical colleges. He submitted that while fees in government institutes range between Rs 9,000 and Rs 27,000, private institutes charge between Rs 95 lakh and Rs 1.5 crore.

According to him, although nearly 1.3 lakh candidates are available up to the 50th percentile, many are unable to secure seats in private colleges due to prohibitive fees. He argued that the regulator should consider imposing a cap on fees, reports Live Law. 

In response to this, Bhati informed the Court that fee fixation regulations framed by the National Medical Commission provide that fees in private colleges cannot exceed 50 percent more than those charged in government colleges of the respective State. Sankaranarayanan countered that if that were the case, then private colleges would be violating the regulations.

At this stage, Justice PS Narasimha observed that although the Union was justified in stating that NEET-PG is not an entry-level examination like MBBS and that candidates are already qualified doctors, the Court would still have to examine the impact of such a drastic reduction in the cut-off.

Concluding this, the court scheduled the matter for the next hearing on March 24, 2026.

Centre's Affidavit 

The affidavit stated that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission decided to reduce the percentile cut-off in view of the large number of anticipated vacant seats. 

Addressing concerns about patient safety, the government said that all NEET-PG candidates are already licensed MBBS doctors. During postgraduate training, they work under the supervision of senior faculty and specialists. Final competence, it said, is assessed at the end of the three-year MD/MS course, where candidates must secure at least 50% marks separately in theory and practical exams without any relaxation.

The affidavit further mentioned that the decision to reduce the percentile would make an additional 1,00,054 candidates eligible for the third round, increasing the total eligible candidates to 2,28,170.

For the 2025–26 academic session, around 70,000 postgraduate seats were available and 2,24,029 candidates had appeared for the exam. Of the 31,742 All-India Quota seats, 9,621 remained vacant after Round 2, including 5,213 seats in government medical colleges and DNB institutions.

The Centre pointed out that eligibility for NEET-PG requires a recognised MBBS degree and completion of compulsory internship. It also noted that due to negative marking, some candidates may score low, zero or even negative marks, and such scores reflect relative performance and examination design and cannot be construed as determinative of clinical competence.

The Union has stated that reduction of the qualifying percentile is not unprecedented as since the inception of NEET-PG in 2017, percentile reductions have been effected in appropriate circumstances to prevent seat wastage. In the academic year 2023 as well, the qualifying percentile was reduced to zero across categories.

The Union further submitted that policy matters are outside the scope of judicial review unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary, mala fide or violative of statutory or constitutional provisions.

The affidavit concluded that postgraduate seats represent substantial national investment in infrastructure, faculty and hospital facilities, and leaving such seats vacant would result in wastage of public resources and training capacity, thereby affecting patient care and healthcare delivery, reports Live Law. 

Background

NBE in a notice dated 13.01.2026, reduced the minimum qualifying percentile cut-off for counselling of the third round of National Eligibility-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025-2026 for various categories of candidates.

As per the revised qualifying percentiles for NEET-PG 2025, for the academic session 2025-2026, for the General/EWS, General PwBD, SC/ST/OBC(Including PwBD of SC/ST/OBC) categories, the revised qualifying cut-off is 7th, 5th, and 0th percentile, respectively. Therefore, the revised cut-off score after lowering the cut-off percentile is 103 for General/EWS, 90 for General PwBD, and -40 for SC/ST/OBC(Including PwBD of SC/ST/OBC) categories, respectively.

The petitioners approached the Apex Court of India seeking directions to quash the NBEMS notification and issue directions to restore and protect minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical education, calling the "arbitrary and unprecedented reduction of qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025–26, including zero and negative scores".

On February 6, the Supreme Court asked the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to file an affidavit explaining why it sharply reduced the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET PG 2025, stating that the Court must be satisfied that the decision was not taken for any 'devious reason'.

In response, the NBE, in its counter-affidavit on February 18, explained that it had no role in deciding to lower the cut-off. NBEMS clarified that the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile was taken by the Directorate General of Health Services under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission (NMC). The examination body said its responsibility is limited to conducting the NEET-PG exam, preparing the results, and handing them over to the counselling authority.

Also read- NEET PG 2025: 95,913 candidates became eligible after cutoff reduction, NBE tells Supreme Court 'it had no role'