New Delhi, Feb 4 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has, on Wednesday, issued a notice regarding a public interest litigation (PIL) that contests the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) decision to significantly lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the NEET-PG 2025–26 examination.

A Bench consisting of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe has requested responses from the Union of India, NBEMS, the National Medical Commission (NMC), and the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), scheduling further hearings on February 6.

The PIL challenges the controversial notification dated January 13, released by NBEMS, which reduced the qualifying cut-off percentiles for postgraduate medical admissions to unreasonably low, zero, and even negative levels following the announcement of results and the conclusion of two rounds of counselling.

As per the petition, the cut-off for General and EWS candidates was decreased from the originally set 50th percentile (276 marks out of 800) to the 7th percentile (approximately 120 marks), while the qualifying percentile for SC, ST, and OBC candidates was lowered from the 40th percentile (235 marks) to zero percentile, enabling eligibility even with negative scores.

The plea, submitted by advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, argues that this reduction is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, posing a grave threat to patient safety, public health, and the integrity of postgraduate medical education.

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

Describing the action as “unprecedented and extreme,” the petition emphasizes that NEET-PG, intended as a national screening mechanism, has been transformed into “a tool certifying failure as eligibility.”

The petitioners also argue that changing the “rules of the game” after the selection process has started and results have been declared is unacceptable.

Additionally, it claims that this decision signifies improper executive interference in academic standards, maintaining that the responsibility for upholding professional standards under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 lies with the NMC as an expert body and should not be subjected to administrative or seat-filling pressures.

Seeking to annul the disputed notification, the petitioners have requested the apex court to restore constitutionally acceptable minimum qualifying standards and issue suitable directives to ensure patient safety, public health, and the rule of law.