Serious issue affecting education quality: Supreme Court to examine validity of reduction in NEET-PG cut-off

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the Central government decision to lower the qualifying cut-off percentiles for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) examination is a serious issue since it affects quality of education [Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India]..The Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said that the reduction in the qualifying cut-off appears to adversely affect the quality of medical education.“It is affecting the quality of education. More than anything, it is about the quality. You (Central government) will have to satisfy us on the reduction of the cut-off so drastically, virtually bringing it to zero,” the Bench remarked.Hence, it will examine the validity of the decision even it is a policy decision falling within the executive domain.“We will examine the policy decision,” the Court said while issuing notice to the government on the batch of petitions challenging the government decision..The pleas before the top court challenge a notice issued on January 13 by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), which stated that the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile cut-off was taken in accordance with directions issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.Under the revised criteria, the cut-off score for the general category is 103, as against 276 earlier. For the SC/ST/OBC category, it is minus 40, down from 235.According to the petitioners, the decision allows candidates with no demonstrable merit to become eligible for postgraduate medical admissions.As per the plea, 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.According to the petition, the move 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..During the hearing today, the Court examined an affidavit filed by the government defending the reduction in the qualifying percentile. The affidavit stated that the move was a ‘policy decision’ taken in view of the large number of vacant postgraduate medical seats.Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati contended that every candidate appearing for NEET-PG is already a duly qualified medical graduate..However, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the primary objective of the respondents appeared to be filling seats rather than maintaining academic standards.“The judgment in Preeti Srivastava held that filling up seats is not the primary objective. Rather, the priority is to ensure that the best education is imparted to the most meritorious students,” Sankaranarayanan argued.He further highlighted the stark fee disparity between government and private institutions.“For government seats, the fees range between ₹9,000 and ₹27,000. In contrast, fees in private colleges range from ₹1 crore to ₹1.5 crore. This is a fact that the regulators should consider. Many students who have merit cannot just pay this fees. Paying ₹1 crore is too much. It is like foreign education, you cannot pay that. They keep lowering the percentile so rich people can afford this,” he submitted..Observing that the issue raised was serious, the Court went on to issue notice on all petitions challenging the government decision..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.