The Supreme Court of India has raised strong objections to the Centre’s decision to drastically reduce the qualifying marks for the NEET-PG examination, cautioning that lowering the cut-off to “virtually zero” risks weakening the quality of medical education and endangering patient safety. The court has directed the government to convincingly explain how such a move can be justified without compromising professional standards.
Hearing the matter on Monday, the apex court told additional solicitor-general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the health ministry, that the burden lay on the Centre to prove that the steep reduction would not dilute academic merit. The bench observed that bringing the cut-off down to such low levels raised serious concerns about the competence of future specialists.
The bench, headed by Justice P. S. Narasimha and comprising Justice Alok Aradhe, acknowledged that NEET-PG differs from undergraduate medical entrance examinations, as candidates are already qualified doctors. However, it stressed that postgraduate education demands higher standards, not relaxed ones. Justice Narasimha remarked that even if postgraduate entry operates on a different footing, competition and merit remain essential to maintaining excellence.
The court was hearing a public interest petition filed by four activists challenging the government’s decision to sharply lower the minimum qualifying marks for NEET-PG 2025. Under the revised norms, the cut-off for general category candidates was reduced to 103 out of 800 from 276. For Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and OBC candidates, it was lowered to 40 from 235, while for candidates with disabilities, it fell to 90 from 255.
Filed through advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, the petition argues that such drastic reductions seriously undermine the credibility of postgraduate medical training. It warns that admitting candidates with extremely low scores could compromise the quality of medical care and put patients’ lives at risk.
The health ministry has defended the policy in an affidavit, stating that all NEET-PG candidates already possess an MBBS degree and have completed compulsory rotational internships. It noted that candidates must secure at least 50 per cent marks separately in theory and practical examinations to qualify as medical graduates.
The ministry claimed that all candidates are academically meritorious and legally entitled to practise modern medicine. It explained that the exam comprises 200 multiple-choice questions carrying four marks each, with negative marking, which can lead to low scores. According to the affidavit, performance in the exam reflects relative ranking and test design rather than clinical ability.
It further stated that in the 2025–26 academic session, around 70,000 postgraduate seats were available for 2.24 lakh candidates, including 31,742 seats under the all-India quota. After the second round of counselling, 9,621 seats remained vacant, including 5,213 in government medical colleges. The ministry argued that lowering the cut-off was necessary to prevent wastage of publicly funded training capacity.
However, critics maintain that filling seats at the cost of quality undermines the very purpose of specialist training. The affidavit also cited final exit examinations after three years of training, requiring at least 50 percent marks in theory and practical, as a safeguard.
Describing postgraduate seats as a major national investment, the government warned against leaving them vacant. The court, however, has adjourned the matter for four weeks, signalling that it remains unconvinced. The case now stands as a crucial test of whether access to medical education can be expanded without sacrificing competence, credibility, and patient safety.
The legal challenge relates to a January 13, 2026, notice issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, which revised the qualifying criteria for the third round of counselling to address these vacancies.
Under the revised rules, the minimum qualifying percentile for unreserved candidates was reduced from 50 to 7, and for unreserved candidates with disabilities to 5. For candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, the qualifying percentile was lowered to zero.
While the government has justified the move as a practical response to vacant seats, the Supreme Court made it clear that administrative convenience cannot override academic integrity. The bench signalled that it would closely scrutinise whether filling seats at any cost risks weakening professional standards in a sector directly linked to public health.
With medical education shaping the quality of future healthcare, the court’s examination is expected to have far-reaching implications for postgraduate admissions and regulatory policy across the country.
