The Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) has raised strong objections to recent decisions reducing the qualifying percentiles for the NEET-PG examination. In a formal request to authorities, the organisation said the repeated lowering of cut-offs could weaken merit standards and risk transforming postgraduate medical admissions into a “pay-to-enter” system.
FOGSI Raises Concerns Over Qualifying Percentile Reductions
FOGSI, representing clinicians and medical academicians, has stressed that frequent reductions in NEET-PG qualifying criteria could undermine the integrity of postgraduate medical education in India. The organisation said that, if left unreviewed, such policy shifts might prioritise financial factors over competence, potentially discouraging merit-based competition. According to the Times of India report, FOGSI has formally requested an immediate reconsideration and reversal of the amended cut-off regime to uphold high academic standards and professional benchmarks within the medical field.
Debate Over Cut-Off Changes in NEET-PG Landscape
In recent months, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) and related authorities have reduced qualifying percentiles for NEET-PG counselling in an effort to fill longstanding vacant postgraduate seatsFor example, the general category qualifying threshold was lowered from the 50th percentile to around the 7th percentile, with reserved category percentiles set at minimal values. While these changes have enabled a significant increase in eligible candidates — including in rounds of counselling where thousands more have registered — critics argue that excessively low cut-offs risk diluting professional standards and could have long-term effects on both training quality and healthcare delivery.
Legal and Professional Backlash
Parallel to FOGSI’s appeal, multiple legal challenges and petitions have been filed in higher courts challenging the sudden percentile reductions. Petitioners argue that sharp alterations in qualifying norms after result announcements violate principles of merit and fairness and may impact patient safety by lowering entry barriers to clinical specialisations. The Supreme Court has sought detailed explanations from authorities about the rationale behind such cut-off changes and is reviewing the impact on academic standards and healthcare outcomes.
Medical Community Voices Broader Risks
Various doctors’ associations have echoed FOGSI’s concerns, warning that historic reductions to eligibility thresholds — including allowing candidates with very low or even negative scores to enter counselling rounds — could weaken the rigor of postgraduate medical training. Critics say this trend may shift emphasis from competence to commercial entry strategies for courses in highly specialised fields. These developments have intensified calls within the medical fraternity for a re-evaluation of policies to prioritise academic excellence, patient care quality and long-term healthcare system resilience.
