A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the NBEMS decision to reduce NEET-PG 2025 qualifying cut-offs to zero and negative percentiles, alleging arbitrariness, violation of Articles 14 and 21, and serious risks to patient safety and public health.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court of India challenging the reduction of NEET-PG 2025–26 qualifying cut-off percentiles, including reduction to zero and negative levels, by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS).
The petition, registered as Diary No. 3085/2026, has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the impugned decision is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and dangerous to public health and patient safety.
Background: NBEMS Notification Under Challenge
The PIL assails the Notice dated 13 January 2026 issued by NBEMS pursuant to directions of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, whereby the minimum qualifying percentiles for NEET-PG 2025–26 admissions were drastically lowered.
Historically, NEET-PG has maintained minimum qualifying standards of:
- 50th percentile for General/EWS candidates, and
- 40th percentile for reserved categories
These standards were designed to ensure baseline competence at the postgraduate and specialist level of medical education.
The petition contends that reducing cut-offs to abnormally low, zero or negative percentiles permits candidates with no demonstrable merit to become eligible for postgraduate medical admissions.
Who Filed the PIL?
The PIL has been filed by a group of medical professionals and public-spirited individuals, namely:
- 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
The petition is filed through Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, Advocate Adarsh Singh, and Advocate-on-Record Ms. Neema.
Constitutional Issues Raised
Violation of Article 21: Right to Life and Patient Safety
The petition argues that medicine is not an ordinary profession, but one that directly impacts human life, dignity, and bodily integrity. Allowing candidates with zero or negative performance into specialist medical training poses a direct threat to patient safety and public health, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
Violation of Article 14: Arbitrariness and Lack of Proportionality
The impugned reduction is alleged to be manifestly arbitrary, lacking:
- Any expert committee report
- Any empirical or pedagogical justification
- Any rational nexus to ensure competence
The petition submits that the decision fails the test of proportionality under Article 14.
The PIL relies upon binding judgments of the Supreme Court, including:
- Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 – Holding that merit cannot be compromised at postgraduate and super-speciality levels
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
- Modern Dental College v. State of M.P.
These cases affirm that medical education cannot be commercialised and that minimum standards are constitutionally mandated.
The petition further alleges a failure of statutory duty under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which mandates the maintenance of high standards in medical education.
Lowering cut-offs merely to fill vacant seats, the petition argues, institutionalises dilution of professional standards in a life-critical field.
Another major ground raised is that the eligibility criteria were altered after the declaration of NEET-PG results, violating:
- Procedural fairness
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation
- The settled principle that “rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream.”
The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) is already operationalising the reduced cut-offs through counselling and seat allotment.
The petition warns that once admissions proceed on unconstitutional criteria, the harm to academic standards and patient safety will be irreversible for the academic year.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to NEET Candidate with 68% Locomotor Disability
Reliefs Sought Before the Supreme Court
The petitioners have sought, inter alia:
- Quashing of the NBEMS Notice dated 13.01.2026
- Stay on counselling and admissions based on reduced cut-offs
- Restoration of constitutionally permissible minimum qualifying standards
- Declaration that minimum standards in PG medical education cannot be diluted
- Constitution of an independent expert committee to address vacant seats through non-arbitrary measures
The matter has just been filed and is expected to be listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the coming days.
Case Title:
HARISHARAN DEVGAN vs. UNION OF INDIA
Diary No. 3085/2026
Click Here to Read More Reports on NEET-PG