Supreme Court junks plea seeking NEET qualifying cutoff reduction for BAMS admissions 2025

New Delhi: Denying a plea by Ayurvedic colleges seeking a reduction in the NEET UG qualifying cut-off in order to fill up the vacant seats, the Supreme Court refused to grant any interim relief in this regard.

"We have perused the affidavit on vacant seats as well as NCIMS opinion on reduction of cutoff. We are of the opinion that the academic year 2025-26 would now come to an end. We are not inclined to pass any interim order," the Apex Court bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe ordered.

The Apex Court's order was issued after the National Commission of Indian System of Medicine expressed its opinion that reducing the cutoff will result in lowering the standard of education.

In an affidavit, the NCISM submitted that the cutoff score for admission to AYUSH undergraduate courses for 2025–26 ranged from 686 to 112 and that any further reduction in percentile would adversely affect the quality and standards of education. The Commission also highlighted in the affidavit that the cutoff was already lower than the previous academic year, when it ranged from 720 to 127.

"In the present academic year, the cutoff score for admission in AYUSH UG course range from 686 to 112 any further reduction in percentile would adversely affect the quality and standard of Education. It is also on the lower side from the previous year cutoff, which ranges from 720 to 127," stated the affidavit.

Ayurvedic Colleges filed the pleas seeking an immediate reduction of the NEET UG qualifying percentile for the ongoing academic year. They argued that several BAMS seats were lying vacant.

Also Read: Doctors' Association Files Plea in Supreme Court Against NEET PG 2025 Reduced Cutoff

As per the latest media report by Live Law, the counsel for NCISM, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, submitted that a reduction in the qualifying percentile could not be considered at this stage since the academic year had already commenced and the students also started attending their classes from 01.11.2025.

Referring to the Commission's affidavit, ASG Dave submitted that altogether 12,36,531 students qualified in the academic year 2025-26 for the 2,23,487 sanctioned seats across all streams of allopathy and AYUSH courses. Out of them, 63,346 students qualified from Madhya Pradesh and 1,25,727 from Maharashtra.

It was also submitted by Dave that the total number of undergraduate Ayurveda seats across the country for 2025-26 was 43,006, with 3,480 seats in Madhya Pradesh and 12,339 seats in Maharashtra.

The affidavit further mentioned that 436 seats were vacant in Madhya Pradesh, while the All-India quota seats were fully filled. Only 50 seats were vacant in Maharashtra, and among them, only 38 seats were under the State Quota. As per the affidavit, the total number of vacant Ayurveda seats across the country was 1,308, which constituted 3.10 per cent of the total seats.

Apart from this, Dave also submitted before the top court bench that the date for the next NEET UG exam for 2026-2027 had already been announced and it was scheduled to be held on May 3, 2026.

Accordingly, she submitted, "In the present academic year, only 1308, seats are vacant at the time of third extension. That is till 22nd of January. That is only 3.10% of total Ayurveda seats which are vacant. Last year, it was 7% even after reduction. This year after extending the cutoff date, it is only 3% which are remaining. It can be that the students don't want to go to these colleges."

Further, the Commission's affidavit also highlighted that NCISM had already considered requests made by institutes and counselling authorities and had extended the cutoff date on three occasions. Therefore, according to the affidavit, allowing admissions at this stage would result in delayed commencement and completion of the compulsory internship, which would affect students' eligibility to appear in the All-India AYUSH Postgraduate Entrance Test, as internship completion dates have already been fixed earlier.

Referring to this, ASG Dave also added that there was a possibility that the students were unwilling to join certain colleges. She argued that the standards of education could not be lowered merely to fill up seats.

On the other hand, the counsel for the colleges, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, submitted that they were not seeking a drastic reduction of the cut-off as was done for NEET PG, but they were seeking a reduction of around 15 percentile. He also submitted that as per the UGC rules, colleges were required to pay faculty salaries as per the Seventh Pay Commission, which involved substantial expenditure, and that the vacant seats meant loss of free income. He further submitted that the regulator was not following the policy that it had followed in the previous two academic years.

After considering the submissions, the HC Justice Narasimha observed that the Court had to take a balanced view. The bench observed that it was concerned about seats going vacant, while also noting that the next NEET cycle was approaching.

At this outset, Sankaranarayanan submitted that the colleges could not increase the fees for the existing students to cover their losses. Accordingly, he urged the Court to consider some discretionary reduction in the cutoff if not a full 15 percentile reduction.

"We are now hamstrung because they are not following the policy that they followed in the last 2 years. We have to burden someone now, we can't increase the fees of the existing students. 12% seats in MP are vacant. If not 15 percentile some discretionary reduction may be made," he submitted before the Court.

However, opposing this, Dave pointed out that nearly 10 lakh students who qualified in NEET UG are still available and their unwillingness to join certain colleges could not justify lowering standards.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu argued that the standards would not be compromised. Naidu highlighted that while fewer students had qualified in the present year, around 18,500 seats had been increased.

Justice Narasimha remarked that the issue touched upon the credibility of the system and that at some tipping point a decision had to be taken. However, the bench declined to grant interim relief for the academic year 2025–26 and directed that the petitions be heard along with similar matters pending before it.

Also Read: BAMS 2025 admissions: CENTAC issues notice on special stray round registration