Today, On 6th February, The Supreme Court sought an affidavit on a PIL challenging reduced NEET-PG cut-offs, stressing that the matter concerns academic standards. The Bench remarked on compromised standards and said it was stunned by the method adopted for evaluating doctors.
The Supreme Court requested a comprehensive affidavit from the Central government regarding a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenges the decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Post Graduate (NEET-PG) examinations.
A Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe emphasized that the issue at hand pertains to standards.
The Court remarked,
“This is about standards. The question is whether those standards are being compromised,”
This comment followed a submission by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, who stated that the case involves postgraduate seats for candidates who are all doctors.
The Court expressed astonishment at the performance of these doctors,
“We were stunned to see why this method was adopted. These are all regular doctors,”
Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks Reply on Plea Against Two-Shift Format for NEET-PG 2025
In response, a counsel indicated that the intention behind the decision was to ensure that no seat goes unfilled.
Earlier, On January 13, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) announced that the cut-off reduction was in accordance with directives from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Under the new criteria, the cut-off score for the general category has been adjusted to 103, down from 276. For the SC/ST/OBC category, the revised score is set at minus 40, reduced from the previous 235.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued that in postgraduate admissions, a relaxation of marks should only occur for exceptional circumstances, and even then, should be limited to 5–6 percentiles.
Sankaranarayanan stated,
“The applicable regulation clearly provides that the minimum qualifying standard is the 50th percentile, which is to be determined with reference to the highest marks obtained. You cannot go all the way down to minus 40 percentile,”
When ASG Bhati posited that there is a distinction between undergraduate and postgraduate seats, Sankaranarayanan referred to the Preeti Srivastava judgment, saying, “higher standards must apply at higher levels of education.”
Following these discussions, the Court directed the Centre to submit a detailed affidavit on the matter.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued that in postgraduate admissions, a relaxation of marks should only occur for exceptional circumstances, and even then, should be limited to 5–6 percentiles.
Sankaranarayanan stated,
“The applicable regulation clearly provides that the minimum qualifying standard is the 50th percentile, which is to be determined with reference to the highest marks obtained. You cannot go all the way down to minus 40 percentile,”
When ASG Bhati posited that there is a distinction between undergraduate and postgraduate seats, Sankaranarayanan referred to the Preeti Srivastava judgment, saying, “higher standards must apply at higher levels of education.”
Following these discussions, the Court directed the Centre to submit a detailed affidavit on the matter.
Earlier, The Supreme Court requested responses from the Centre and other parties regarding a petition that challenges the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences’ (NBEMS) decision to significantly lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET PG 2025-26.
The petition argues that eligibility criteria should not be changed once the selection process has begun, as candidates based their preparations, competition, and career decisions on the initially announced cut-offs.
The petition further asserts that postgraduate medical education must not be treated as a commercial venture, emphasizing that regulatory authorities are responsible for maintaining high standards.
Many members of the medical community have labeled the NBEMS’s decision as “unprecedented and illogical,” given the drastic reduction in the cut-off percentiles for all candidates in NEET PG 2025-26.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, registered as Diary No. 3085/2026.
The following Petitioners are behind this PIL:
- Mr. Harisharan Devgan (Social Worker and Farmer Leader)
- Dr. Saurav Kumar (Neurosurgeon)
- Dr. Lakshya Mittal (President, United Doctors Front)
- Dr. Akash Soni (Member, World Medical Association)
Also Read: NEET-PG 2024 || Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Reconduct Counselling
The PIL addresses critical constitutional issues, arguing that the drastic reduction of minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical education is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It expresses concerns about the serious implications for patient safety, public health, and the integrity of the medical profession.
Furthermore, the petition points out that lowering merit standards at the postgraduate level goes against established legal principles and the statutory framework stipulated by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
Case Title: Harisharan Devgan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.