New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed serious concern over the reduction of qualifying cut-off percentiles for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses (NEET-PG) 2025, observing that the issue directly touches upon the standards of medical education in the country. A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe sought a detailed affidavit from the Union government while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the decision.
The PIL, filed in Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India, questions the legality and constitutionality of the decision taken by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to substantially lower the qualifying percentile for postgraduate medical admissions. During the hearing, the Bench remarked that it was “stunned” by the performance reflected in the examination results, especially since all candidates appearing for NEET-PG are already qualified doctors.
“This is about standards. The question is whether those standards are being compromised,” the Court observed, underscoring the larger implications of the policy decision. The remarks came after Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the case concerned postgraduate medical seats and that all candidates involved were trained medical professionals.
In response, counsel representing the authorities argued that the intent behind lowering the cut-off was to ensure that no postgraduate medical seat remains vacant. However, the Court appeared unconvinced, noting that lowering standards at such a crucial level of medical education could have far-reaching consequences.
According to a notice issued by NBEMS on January 13, the reduction in qualifying percentile was undertaken in accordance with directions from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Under the revised criteria, the cut-off score for candidates in the general category was reduced to 103 from an earlier score of 276. For SC, ST and OBC candidates, the cut-off was lowered drastically to minus 40, compared to the earlier score of 235.
The petitioners have challenged this decision, arguing that it allows candidates with no demonstrable merit to qualify for postgraduate medical admissions. The plea contends that such a reduction is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and the right to life, respectively. It further asserts that diluting minimum standards at the postgraduate level institutionalises sub-standard competence and poses a direct threat to patient safety and public health.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that relaxation of marks in postgraduate admissions is permissible only in exceptional circumstances and even then, to a limited extent. Citing the Preeti Srivastava judgment, he stressed that higher standards must apply at higher levels of education and that the regulations clearly mandate a minimum qualifying standard of the 50th percentile.
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to file a detailed affidavit explaining the rationale behind the decision, signalling that the issue of maintaining standards in medical education will receive close judicial scrutiny.
