PIL in Allahabad HC against lowering NEET-PG cut-off score to 103 for general candidates, minus 40 for SC/ST

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences’ (board) recent decision to lower the NEET PG 2025 qualifying cut-off from 50th percentile to 7th percentile for General Category candidates and from 40th percentile to zero percentile for reserved category candidates.

The PIL filed by advocate Abhinav Gaur was registered by the Allahabad bench registry today. However, it has not been listed for hearing yet.

In a notice issued on January 13, the board said that the decision to reduce to qualifying percentile cut-off was taken in accordance with the directions of the Union Ministry of Health & 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.

In the PIL, Gaur has argued that candidates, who are unable to demonstrate even a minimal threshold of medical knowledge in the standardized and nationally-conducted examination, cannot be presumed competent for specialist roles.

An inadequately trained specialist doctor poses a direct, routine,and continuing risk to patients undergoing diagnosis, treatment or surgical procedures, thereby violating the right to health and life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the plea adds.

“A candidate qualified by securing entrance through negative marks cannot be said to have improved skills or  qualification at time of undergoing the course if he is otherwise not fit enough to secure the seat without relaxation to even minus marks,” Gaur's plea states.

The board’s decision inflicts serious injury upon constitutional equality by “creating arbitrary, unreasonable, and overly excessive caste-based differentiation” without any rational nexus to legitimate affirmative-action objectives, the plea further argues.

“The Respondents' action also inflicts institutional injury by undermining public confidence in the fairness, transparency, and administrative competence o f medical regulatory systems,” it adds.

Thus, the PIL has sought an order to restrain the authorities from acting in furtherance of the board’s decision. Further, the plea urges the Court to declare any admissions undertaken on the basis of the January 13 decision to be null and void.