New Delhi, Feb 23 (NationPress) The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has informed the Supreme Court that the decision to lower the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025–26 was made following thorough discussions among expert committees, aiming to address the significant number of vacant postgraduate medical seats and to ensure the effective use of the national healthcare system.

An affidavit submitted by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) argued that the challenge against the January 13 notification from the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) – which set the qualifying cut-off for postgraduate medical admissions to unusually low levels, even down to zero or negative scores after the results were declared and two rounds of counselling completed – is misguided, as it pertains to an academic and policy decision made within the legal framework of the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, 2019.

"It is respectfully submitted that the challenge relates to an academic and policy determination made by authorized statutory bodies under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, in the public interest and within the purview of expert regulation,” stated the affidavit.

Highlighting the limits of judicial review, the Centre asserted that the writ petition is "not maintainable" since it questions a policy decision made by expert bodies considering the availability of seats and healthcare needs in India.

The affidavit clarified that NEET-PG is not intended to certify minimum clinical competence, which is already established by the MBBS qualification, but rather to create a merit list for the allocation of limited postgraduate seats.

"The NEET PG scores reflect relative performance and examination design, which cannot be interpreted as a measure of clinical incompetence," it noted.

Providing evidence, the Centre informed the apex court that for the academic year 2025–26, there are approximately 70,000 seats available, including 31,742 seats under the All-India Quota (AIQ).

After the conclusion of Round-2 of counselling, 9,621 AIQ seats remained unfilled.

"A meeting was held on December 30, 2025, to reassess the percentile cut-off in light of the anticipated large number of vacant seats and to optimize the use of available postgraduate seats," the affidavit explained, noting that the meeting minutes indicated that nearly 20,000 postgraduate seats, including DNB seats, were likely to remain unfilled nationwide after the second counselling round.

According to the affidavit, this decision allowed an additional 1,00,054 candidates to qualify for the third round of counselling, raising the total eligible candidates to 2,28,170.

"This action does not compromise academic standards, does not alter inter se merit, and does not confer any undue advantage to any category of institutions," the affidavit highlighted.

The Centre emphasized that similar reductions have occurred in previous years, mentioning that the qualifying percentile was set to zero across all categories for the 2023 academic session.

In response to concerns regarding patient safety, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare assured that all postgraduate trainees operate under the continuous supervision of senior faculty and specialists, with final competence evaluated through MD/MS examinations, where candidates must achieve at least 50 percent marks in both theory and practical assessments without any leniency.

"PG seats represent significant public resources and training capacity, and leaving these seats vacant would lead to wastage of valuable national investment in infrastructure, faculty, and hospital resources," it added.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Centre contended that courts typically refrain from intervening in academic or policy matters unless such decisions are proven to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.

"It is not within the Court's purview to navigate uncharted waters of public policy to determine whether a specific public policy is prudent or if a better public policy could be developed. Such assessments must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities," the affidavit stated.

Stressing that "the reduction of the qualifying percentile is a proportional administrative measure aimed at preventing seat wastage and enhancing specialist healthcare capacity," the Union government requested the Supreme Court to dismiss the writ petition as "lacking merit."

A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe had previously issued notices to the Union government, the NBEMS, the NMC, and the MCC in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the restoration of the original qualifying standards outlined in the NEET-PG 2025 Information Bulletin.

The petition, filed in the Supreme Court by advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, argued that the lowering of qualifying standards is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as posing a serious threat to patient safety, public health, and the integrity of postgraduate medical education.

It claimed that allowing candidates with zero or negative scores to enter specialist training undermines merit at the highest level of medical education and jeopardizes minimum standards of professional competence.

Describing the action as "unprecedented and extreme," the petition asserted that the NEET-PG, designed to act as a national screening mechanism, has been transformed into "an instrument certifying failure as eligibility," and further challenged the reduction on the basis that the "rules of the game" cannot be altered once the selection process has started and results have been declared.