SC plea challenges sharp cut in NEET-PG 2025 qualifying percentiles

A public interest litigation challenging the sharp reduction in qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025–26 is likely to come up for hearing in the Supreme Court next week.

The petition questions the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences’ decision, communicated through a Jan 13 notice issued by the Medical Counselling Committee, to lower cut-offs to levels that petitioners have described as “abnormally low,” including zero and negative scores, a move that triggered strong reactions from doctors and medical students nationwide.

Advocate Satyam Singh said, “We (petitioners) are expecting that the matter will be listed before the court sometime this week, by January 23. However, taking into account the procedural timelines, at the earliest we can expect it to be listed within the next week, following the Republic Day holiday on January 26.”

The plea has been filed by social worker Harisharan Devgan and also names neurosurgeon Dr Saurav Kumar, United Doctors Front president Dr Lakshya Mittal, and World Medical Association member Dr Akash Soni.

It was moved under Article 32 through advocate-on-record Neema Singh, with assistance from advocates Satyam Singh Rajput and Adarsh Singh.

The petition argues that the cut-off reduction violates Article 14, which protects against arbitrariness, and Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and health in a broader sense.

According to the writ petition, the decision places the objective of filling vacant postgraduate medical seats above merit and the minimum standards of competence required in medical education.

The plea contends that postgraduate medical education cannot be treated as a commercial exercise and that regulators are obligated to prevent any dilution of academic standards.

It states that “lowering eligibility criteria to such levels undermines the purpose of a competitive examination and has implications for patient safety and public health.”

The petition also alleges procedural unfairness, arguing that “rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream,” since aspirants prepared and made career decisions based on the originally notified cut-offs.

Referring to a similar episode in 2023, the petition notes that cut-offs were then reduced to zero percentile across categories, corresponding to a lowest score of minus 40.

That year, candidates with zero marks and negative scores were declared qualified. For 2025, the petitioners say hundreds of candidates are again likely to have scored zero or below, with the lowest score once more being minus 40.

The challenge also draws attention to the center’s earlier stance on maintaining minimum standards in medical education.

In July 2022, while opposing a plea seeking a reduction in NEET-PG cut-offs, the government had told the court that minimum qualifying percentiles were necessary to preserve baseline educational standards.

The Delhi High Court had accepted that argument and dismissed the plea, observing that dilution of medical education standards “involves in its ambit the matter of life and death.”

The petition further questions the proportionality of the cut-off reduction, stating that even if filling vacant seats is a legitimate goal, lowering eligibility to zero or negative scores is excessive.

It suggests that alternative steps such as improving counseling processes, redistributing seats, or regulating fees could have been considered instead.