E-Paper
95,913 more candidates can be counselled after NEET-PG cut-off lowered: SC told
National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences says qualified candidates rose to 2.24 lakh after NEET-PG 2025 cut-off cut; warns Supreme Court plea may disrupt counselling
New Delhi: The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has informed the Supreme Court of India that 95,913 additional candidates have become eligible for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025 counselling after the qualifying percentile was reduced, cautioning that any interference at this stage would directly affect these candidates.
In an affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the lowering of the NEET-PG cut-off, NBEMS said that the number of qualified candidates increased from 1,28,116 under the earlier criteria to 2,24,029 under the revised criteria. “It is ex-facie apparent that pursuant to the lowering of cut off 95,913 additional candidates have now become eligible to participate in the counselling for NEET PG 2025,” it submitted.
The Board contended that any order in the present writ petition would affect these candidates, who are not before the court, and on that ground alone the petition deserves dismissal.
The matter is expected to be taken up next week by a Bench led by Justice P S Narasimha.
In its counter-affidavit, NBEMS asserted that it had no role whatsoever in the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025. It said its functions are strictly confined to conducting the examination, evaluating answer sheets, and forwarding the results to the designated counselling authority — the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC).
According to the affidavit, the decision to reduce the cut-off fell exclusively within the domain of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the National Medical Commission (NMC).
The Board stated that, by a communication dated January 9, 2026, the Ministry informed it that the qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET-PG 2025 counselling had been reduced for various categories. It was directed to revise the results accordingly.
“In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the answering Respondent published the Impugned Notice dated 13.01.2026 notifying the revised cut-off scores for NEET PG 2025,” said the affidavit, adding that the revised results were forwarded to the MCC on the same day.
The petitions before the top court seek quashing of the January 13 notice, restoration of the minimum qualifying standards, and a stay on counselling conducted on the basis of the reduced percentile. The petitioners have argued that reducing the cut-off to what they describe as abnormally low, zero, or negative levels amounts to an unconstitutional dilution of minimum standards in postgraduate medical education, endangering public health and violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
NBEMS has further pointed out that a similar challenge was dismissed by the Delhi High Court in Sanchit Seth vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Ors by a judgment dated January 21, 2026.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed the Union government and NBEMS to explain the rationale behind the reduction in the qualifying percentile.
The reduction in the qualifying percentile has stirred considerable controversy within sections of the medical fraternity. Several associations and groups of doctors have voiced concern that lowering the threshold dilutes meritocracy, compromises academic rigour, and could adversely affect the quality of specialist training, with potential long-term implications for patient safety.
The petitioners have also pointed out that, following the revision of the cut-off, candidates with scores as low as minus 40 out of 800 would now be eligible to participate in the counselling. According to them, permitting candidates with such low or negative scores to compete for postgraduate medical seats amounts to an arbitrary dilution of minimum professional standards. They have contended that such a move undermines the regulatory framework governing postgraduate medical education and raises serious concerns about maintaining constitutionally permissible standards in professional courses.
