The Supreme Court of India has expressed concern over the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) decision to reduce NEET PG 2025 qualifying cut‑offs, including allowing eligibility at zero and negative marks such as minus 40. During a hearing on 6 February 2026, the bench directed the Union government to file a detailed affidavit explaining the basis for lowering eligibility norms for postgraduate medical admissions.
SC Flags Serious Concerns Over Drastic Drop in Qualifying Cut‑Offs
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenges the NBEMS notification dated 13 January 2026, which reduced the minimum qualifying percentile for various categories to very low thresholds. The court noted that cut‑offs reduced from traditional levels — such as from 50th percentile to 7th for general candidates and down to minus 40 for reserved categories — raise questions about educational standards and professional competency. During the hearing, the bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe acknowledged that while vacant postgraduate seats were cited as the reason for lowering standards, reducing them to such extreme levels cannot be accepted without thorough justification. The court emphasised the need to balance filling seats with maintaining the quality of medical education and public health safety
Supreme Court Directs Government Response, No Stay on Counselling
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to file a comprehensive affidavit in response, laying out the rationale and legal basis for the cut‑off reduction. No specific date was fixed for the affidavit, and the petitioners are likely to move a fresh application within the coming week, which will inform future timelines for the case. Notably, the court did not grant any interim stay on the ongoing NEET PG 2025 counselling process. Candidates can continue with counselling and seat allotment procedures as per the existing schedule.
Background: NEET PG 2025 Cut‑Off Changes and Legal Challenge
Earlier, NBEMS revised the qualifying percentiles for the third round of counselling, significantly relaxing eligibility criteria to address a large number of vacant postgraduate medical seats nationwide. Under the revised norms, qualifying scores dropped dramatically: for instance, reserved category candidates could qualify with marks as low as minus 40 out of 800. Critics argue this dilution could undermine merit‑based selection and compromise the quality of specialist medical training. The PIL challenges this change on constitutional grounds, asserting that it violates principles of equal protection (Article 14) and the right to life and health (Article 21) by permitting admissions with extremely low academic performance.
What Comes Next in the Supreme Court Case?
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter for further hearing after the government’s affidavit is filed. Reports indicate the next detailed hearing could be scheduled for 13 February 2026, when the Centre’s stand will be examined alongside petitioner arguments. Medical aspirants and stakeholders are closely watching developments, as the court’s decision may influence future eligibility criteria and the overall fairness of the medical postgraduate admissions process in India.