The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: iStock Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to explain the reasons for reducing the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26.
"Our conscience has to be satisfied that there is no devious reason, that's all," a bench of Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said, as questions were raised over the board's decision to reduce the qualifying percentile to zero for reserved categories which will make the score as low as minus 40 out of 800.
A batch of pleas challenged the January 13 notice issued by the NBEMS reducing the qualifying cut-off percentiles for counselling of the third round of NEET-PG 2025-26 for various categories.
Taking up the matter, the bench said, it will review the decision to lower the cut-off marks, once it received a response from the Centre and others.
The court sought to know the reasons from the NBEMS to explain why the cut-off was lowered so drastically.
The court observed that the issue involved competing considerations which were required to be balanced. The petitioners' counsel contended that standards ought to be stricter at the postgraduate level.
The bench said on the one hand it has this competing value to protect the seats, and the seats should not go to waste. “At the same time, there is pressure that candidates are not coming, so please reduce the cut off," the bench said.
The general category cut-off was reduced from 276 to 103 marks, while the SC/ST/OBC category cut-off was lowered from 235 to minus 40 marks.
The petitioners contended, the decision was arbitrary and compromised the standards and patient safety.
As over 18,000 postgraduate medical seats across the country remaining vacant, the Board revised the qualifying percentiles for NEET-PG 2025 admissions, reducing it to zero from 40 percentile for reserved categories, which will make even those scoring as low as minus 40 out of 800 to take part in the third round of counselling for PG medical seats, the petitioners claimed.
The plea by Harisharan Devgan raised the issues of grave constitutional importance, contending that the reduction of minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical education is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
It contended the decision posed a serious risk to patient safety, public health, and the integrity of the medical profession.
The petition also highlighted that dilution of merit at the postgraduate level was contrary to settled law and the statutory mandate under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
The petitioners sought appropriate directions from the court, including quashing of the notification and protection of minimum qualifying standards in medical education.