The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has informed the Supreme Court of India that reduction of the NEET-PG 2025 qualifying percentile resulted in 95,913 additional candidates becoming eligible for the postgraduate counselling process. NBEMS clarified that it had no role in deciding the cut-off reduction, even as legal challenges to the revision continue before the top court.
Supreme Court Seized of NEET-PG Cut-Off Challenge
The issue came before a bench of the Supreme Court after multiple petitions challenged the decision to lower the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025 counselling. Critics argue that altering eligibility thresholds after the examination process has begun could affect fairness, merit standards, and consistency in medical education admissions. In its counter-affidavit filed with the court, NBEMS stated that its role is strictly limited to conducting the NEET-PG examination, evaluating answer sheets, and forwarding final results to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC). The board emphasised that it did not originate or decide the reduction in cut-off percentiles.
Details of Cut-Off Reduction and Eligibility Impact
According to the NBEMS submission, the decision to revise the qualifying percentiles was communicated to it by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) — under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare — and the National Medical Commission (NMC). In compliance, NBEMS issued an official notice revising the qualifying criteria and published revised results on 13 January 2026.
As a result of the revision:
- The qualifying percentile for the Unreserved category was reduced to the 7th percentile (from 50th).
- For Unreserved Persons with Disabilities, it was shifted to the 5th percentile.
- For SC/ST/OBC categories, the qualifying percentile was reduced to zero percentile.
This effectively broadened eligibility, allowing candidates with very low marks — potentially as low as negative scores under extreme interpretations — to participate in counselling. NBEMS highlighted that the expansion of eligible candidates was intended to address the issue of over 18,000 postgraduate seats remaining vacant across the country, but stressed that any judicial order impacting the revised eligibility could adversely affect those not party to the litigation.
Arguments and Legal Considerations
Petitioners challenging the cut-off reduction argue that eligibility standards for a national examination should not be altered once results have been declared and counselling rounds have started. They contend that lower thresholds could dilute merit criteria and compromise the integrity of medical admissions. In support of the NBEMS stance, reference was made to a recent Delhi High Court decision dismissing a similar challenge, wherein the court found no arbitrariness in the cut-off reduction and held that expanding the pool of eligible candidates does not directly determine admissions, which remain merit-based during counselling and seat allocation.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court is expected to hear further arguments on this matter, balancing considerations of regulatory authority, procedural fairness in entrance examinations, and the potential impact on thousands of aspiring medical postgraduate candidates. The outcome could influence not only the ongoing counselling cycles but also future policies on eligibility criteria for competitive national exams.
