The Supreme Court of India is set to hear a batch of petitions challenging the reduction in the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025–26 on April 28, 2026. The case has sparked a nationwide debate over the balance between maintaining academic standards and ensuring access to postgraduate medical seats.
During the recent proceedings, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan argued that there is no shortage of qualified candidates to fill available postgraduate seats. He contended that vacancies persist largely due to the high fees charged by private medical institutions, rather than a lack of merit among aspirants. According to him, lowering the qualifying percentile is not a necessary solution to address unfilled seats.
The matter was earlier heard by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, who indicated that the court would examine whether a significant reduction in the cut-off could adversely impact the standards of postgraduate medical education.
Presenting a contrasting view, Senior Advocate DS Naidu, representing a candidate in support of the revised cut-off, argued that the decision does not compromise academic quality. He emphasised that all NEET-PG candidates are already qualified doctors who have completed their MBBS degree, thereby ensuring a baseline level of competence.
The controversy stems from a January 13, 2026, notification issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which significantly reduced the qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET-PG counselling. The cut-off for General and EWS categories was lowered from the 50th percentile (276 marks out of 800) to the 7th percentile (103 marks). For General PwBD candidates, it dropped from the 45th percentile to the 5th percentile. Meanwhile, for SC, ST, and OBC candidates, including those under the PwBD category, the qualifying percentile was reduced to zero, effectively allowing even very low or negative scores to be considered.
Petitioners have argued that such a drastic reduction is arbitrary and violates constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 21. They have raised concerns that lowering the threshold to this extent could weaken the quality of postgraduate medical training and potentially impact patient care and public health outcomes.
Earlier, on February 6, the apex court had asked the NBEMS to clarify the reasoning behind the decision. At that time, the bench observed that the issue involves balancing two critical aspects—ensuring that seats are filled while maintaining high educational standards.
In its response, the Centre defended the move, stating that NEET-PG is primarily a ranking examination used for seat allocation rather than a test of minimum competence, which is already established through the MBBS qualification. It also noted that postgraduate medical education involves rigorous three-year training, with final competence assessed through MD/MS examinations that require at least 50% marks in both theory and practical components.
Separately, the NBEMS clarified that it was not involved in the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile, stating that its role is limited to conducting the examination and providing results to the counselling authorities.
With the matter now scheduled for a detailed hearing on April 28, the Supreme Court’s decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for medical education policy and admission standards in India.