New Delhi, Feb 22 (NationPress) The Supreme Court is set to consider a public interest litigation (PIL) on Monday that contests the significant reduction in the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the NEET-PG 2025–26 examination. According to the daily cause list available on the apex court's website, a Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe will hear this case on February 23.

Previously, the apex court had issued a notice regarding the PIL, which questions the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for postgraduate medical admissions to alarmingly low, zero, and even negative thresholds after the results were declared and following two rounds of counselling.

The Justice Narasimha-led Bench requested responses from the Union of India, NBEMS, the National Medical Commission (NMC), and the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC).

In its response submitted to the Supreme Court, NBEMS asserted that it played no role in the decision to decrease the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025–26, emphasizing that its responsibility is strictly confined to administering the examination and publishing results as directed by the relevant authorities.

“The responding party respectfully states that NBEMS's role is strictly limited to conducting the NEET PG examination in a fair and transparent manner, assessing answers, and delivering the final results to the relevant counselling authority, namely the MCC,” the affidavit indicated.

It clarified that it had “no role whatsoever in the decision regarding the reduction of the qualifying percentile for NEET PG 2025” and that this decision “exclusively falls within the jurisdiction” of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the NMC. The affidavit noted that the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in a communication dated January 9, informed it about the reduction of the qualifying percentile cut-off for the third round of NEET-PG 2025–26 counselling and instructed it to publish revised results accordingly.

“In adherence to the aforementioned directive, the responding party published the contested notice dated January 13, informing about the revised cut-off scores for NEET PG 2025,” the response stated, adding that the updated results were sent to the MCC on the same day.

Under the new criteria, the minimum qualifying percentile for Unreserved candidates was decreased to the 7th percentile (cut-off score 103 out of 800), for UR-PwD candidates to the 5th percentile (90 marks), and for SC/ST/OBC candidates to the 0th percentile, corresponding to a cut-off score of minus 40. Presenting data, NBEMS informed the court that 95,913 additional candidates became eligible to participate in counselling following the reduction of the cut-off.

It further argued that any ruling issued in this writ petition would directly impact these candidates, who are not represented before the Supreme Court, and “on this basis alone, the current petition is liable to be dismissed.”

NBEMS also highlighted the dismissal of a comparable challenge by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sanchit Seth vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Ors.

In its decision on January 21, the Delhi High Court found no arbitrariness in the decrease of the eligibility percentile and concluded that concerns regarding patient safety and the dilution of merit were “unfounded and not grounded in any empirical study.”

The PIL, lodged with 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, in addition to posing a serious threat to patient safety, public health, and the integrity of postgraduate medical education.

It contended that allowing candidates with zero or negative scores to enter specialist training erodes merit at the highest level of medical education and undermines essential standards of professional competence. Describing the action as “unprecedented and extreme,” the petition stated that the NEET-PG, intended to serve as a national screening mechanism, has been transformed into “an instrument certifying failure as eligibility,” and further contested the reduction on the grounds that the “rules of the game” cannot be altered post the commencement of the selection process and after results have been announced.