Summary
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to significantly lower the qualifying percentile for the NEET PG 2025.
The petition contests the reduction of the cut-off for reserved category candidates to zero percentile or even negative marks, calling the move arbitrary and unconstitutional.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to significantly lower the qualifying percentile for the NEET PG 2025 third round of counselling. The petition contests the reduction of the cut-off for reserved category candidates to zero percentile or even negative marks, calling the move arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The PIL has been filed by Dr Lakshya Mittal, President of the United Doctors Front (UDF), along with other petitioners (Harisharan Devgan, Saurav Kumar, and Dr Akash Soni). Registered as Diary No. 3085/2026, the petition has been moved under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The case is being represented by Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, Advocate Adarsh Singh, and Advocate-on-Record Neema. The matter is recently filed and is expected to be listed before the apex court shortly.
In the petition, the doctors’ body has strongly opposed what it describes as an “arbitrary and unprecedented dilution of qualifying standards” for NEET PG 2025–26, including the allowance of zero and negative scores for eligibility. The petitioners argue that permitting candidates with extremely low or negative marks to qualify for postgraduate medical courses poses serious risks to patient safety, public health, and the credibility of the medical profession.
The plea further contends that the NBEMS decision violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, asserting that such a drastic relaxation of merit norms is discriminatory and undermines the right to life by potentially compromising the quality of healthcare. It also claims that the move goes against established judicial precedents and contravenes the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which obligates regulatory authorities to maintain minimum standards in medical education.
The petition seeks directions from the Supreme Court to quash the NBEMS notification and restore reasonable minimum qualifying criteria for admission to postgraduate medical programmes. According to the petitioners, lowering standards to such an extent erodes merit-based selection and threatens the long-term integrity of medical training in the country.
The controversy arises amid the ongoing NEET PG 2025 round 3 counselling, for which registration began on January 15. Under the revised norms, the qualifying cut-off for SC, ST, and OBC candidates has been reduced to zero percentile, while for General and EWS candidates, the cut-off has been lowered from the 50th percentile to the 7th percentile, effectively reducing the qualifying score from 276 marks to 103 marks.
NBEMS has stated that the decision was taken to address the issue of vacant postgraduate medical seats by allowing a larger pool of candidates to participate in counselling. Despite the lowered cut-offs, seat allotment continues to be based on rank. However, the petitioners maintain that filling vacant seats should not come at the cost of compromising minimum academic and professional standards in postgraduate medical education.
A final decision on the matter will depend on the Supreme Court’s consideration once the case is formally listed for hearing.
Last updated on 17 Jan 2026
