Compromising standards? Supreme Court "stunned" by reduction in NEET-PG 2025 cut-off

The Supreme Court on Friday sought a detailed affidavit from Central government on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Post Graduate (NEET-PG) examinations [Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India].

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe remarked that the subject matter involved the question of standards.

"This is about standards. The question is whether those standards are being compromised," the Court said

The Court made the comment after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the case involves postgraduate seats for which all the candidates are doctors.

The Court, however, expressed surprise at the performance of the doctors.

"We were stunned to see why this method was adopted. These are all regular doctors," it remarked.

In response, a counsel said that the intention was to ensure that no seat goes to waste.

In a notice issued on January 13, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) said that the decision to reduce to qualifying percentile cut-off was taken in accordance with the directions of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Under the revised criteria, the cut-off score for the general category is 103; the same was 276 earlier. For the SC/ST/OBC category, it is minus 40, down from the earlier score of 235.

The plea before the top court challenges the notice. According to the plea, the decision allows candidates with no demonstrable merit to become eligible for postgraduate medical admissions.

The plea contends that the reduction of minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical education is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 (right to equality and against arbitrariness and discrimination) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

It further argues that reduction abolishes merit at the apex level of medical education, institutionalises sub-standard competence, and poses a direct and foreseeable threat to patient safety and public health.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that in postgraduate admissions, marks cannot be relaxed, except for exceptional reasons, and even then, only to a limited extent of 5–6 percentiles.

"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," Sankaranarayanan added

When ASG Bhati argued that there is a difference between undergraduate and postgraduate seats, Sankaranarayanan said,

"Preeti Srivastava judgment says higher standards must apply at higher levels of education."

The Court then directed the Centre to file a detailed affidavit in the matter.