Today, On 23rd February, The Supreme Court heard a plea challenging the reduction in the NEET PG 2025 percentile cut-off. In its affidavit, the Union of India stated, “NEET-PG is not to certify minimum competence… but to generate an inter se merit list… scores cannot be construed as determinative of clinical incompetence.”
The Supreme Court heard a plea challenging the reduction in the percentile cut-off for NEET PG 2025.
A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the matter.
The Central Government has explained before the Supreme Court of India that the decision to reduce the NEET PG 2025 cut-off was not connected to competence, because the exam only works as a filtering tool for seat allocation and not as a certification of skills.
In its affidavit, the Union of India said,
“NEET-PG is not to certify minimum competence which stands established by the MBBS qualification itself of the candidates but to generate an inter se merit list for allocation of limited postgraduate seats. The NEET PG scores are a function of relative performance and examination design which cannot be construed as determinative of clinical incompetence.”
Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks Reply on Plea Against Two-Shift Format for NEET-PG 2025
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan highlighted that the fee structure clearly shows a huge gap between government and private colleges.
He submitted that while government institutes charge fees between Rs.9,000 and Rs.27,000, private medical colleges are demanding fees ranging from Rs.95 lakhs to Rs.1.5 crores.
He also pointed out that even though around 1.3 lakh students fall within the 50th percentile, many cannot take admission because private seats are unaffordable.
Therefore, he explained that authorities end up lowering cut-offs since several eligible candidates are unable to pay such high amounts.
Justice P. S. Narasimha observed that the main concern of the Court is to ensure the quality of medical education.
He noted that the authorities must clearly justify how a drastic reduction in the cut-off, which almost makes it negligible, can be supported.
At the same time, he acknowledged that postgraduate admissions are different from undergraduate MBBS admissions because NEET PG candidates are already qualified doctors, but even then, the issue needs careful examination.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan requested the Court to issue formal notice in all connected petitions. The Bench clarified that notice has been issued only in one matter and in that specific case it already stands issued.
The Court asked all parties to take notice and file the required compilations and written submissions.
The Court stated that all the petitions linked to the NEET PG cut-off issue will be heard together on 24th March.
Earlier, 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.
This litigation has been initiated by Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, along with Advocates Satyam Singh Rajput, Adarsh Singh, and Advocate on Record Neema. The petition challenges the Notice dated 13.01.2026 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which significantly reduced the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025–26 to alarmingly low, zero, and even negative levels.
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., W.P.(C) No. 136/2026
Read Live Coverage