Supreme Court Takes Up PIL Challenging NEET-PG Cut-Off Reduction

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a public interest petition. The petition questions the steep reduction in qualifying percentiles for the NEET-PG 2025–26 examination.

The plea challenges the decision taken by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences. It further questions the revision of cut-offs after the results had already been declared.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe directed the Union of India, NBEMS, the National Medical Commission and the Medical Counselling Committee to submit their responses.

The court has scheduled the matter for hearing on February 6.

The petition contests an NBEMS notification dated January 13, which lowered the minimum qualifying percentiles for postgraduate medical admissions after two rounds of counselling had concluded.

The move, the plea argues, introduced unusually relaxed eligibility norms at an advanced stage of the selection process.

As per the petition, the qualifying threshold for General and Economically Weaker Section candidates was reduced from the mandated 50th percentile. This earlier benchmark corresponded to 276 marks out of 800. It was lowered to the 7th percentile, roughly translating to 120 marks.

For Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backwards Class candidates, the benchmark was brought down from the 40th percentile. This earlier cut-off of 235 marks was reduced to zero percentile, enabling candidates with negative scores to qualify.

Petition Terms Decision Unconstitutional

The PIL was filed by advocate Satyam Singh Rajput. It maintains that the cut-off reduction is unreasonable, unconstitutional and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, while warning that admitting candidates with minimal or negative scores into specialist training could endanger patient care, public health and academic credibility.

The petition describes the decision as extraordinary. It also argues that a national screening examination has effectively been stripped of its core merit-based purpose.

The plea further states that eligibility conditions cannot be modified once the admission process is underway. It terms the move a violation of well-established legal principles. It also alleges undue administrative interference in academic matters.

The petition asserts that, under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the National Medical Commission alone is authorised to maintain professional standards.

The petitioners have urged the court to quash the impugned notification. They have also sought restoration of minimum qualifying requirements to protect public interest and uphold the rule of law.