NBEMS Clarifies Limited Role in NEET-PG Cut-Off Saga Before Supreme Court

In a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over medical postgraduate admissions, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has informed the Supreme Court of India that the recent reduction in the NEET-PG 2025 qualifying percentile has rendered an additional 95,913 candidates eligible for counselling. Filing a counter-affidavit in response to writ petitions challenging the decision, NBEMS emphatically distanced itself from the policy choice, asserting that its mandate is confined to conducting the examination and handing over results. This revelation comes as a Constitution Bench led by Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe prepares to delve into the rationale behind the cut-off adjustment in Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 136/2026 and connected matters). The affidavit's emphasis on third-party rights underscores the high stakes for India's medical education ecosystem.

The controversy highlights tensions between regulatory bodies, petitioners aggrieved by perceived arbitrariness, and lakhs of aspiring doctors whose careers hang in the balance. As counselling for the third round looms, legal professionals are closely watching for precedents on administrative discretion in competitive examinations.

Understanding NEET-PG and the Counselling Process

The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) serves as the gateway to over 50,000 MD/MS/DNB seats across India annually. Conducted by NBEMS under the oversight of the National Medical Commission (NMC), the exam determines eligibility based on a qualifying percentile—typically 50th for general category, lower for reserved categories. Post-results, the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, manages centralized counselling in multiple rounds.

Historically, cut-offs have fluctuated due to factors like candidate volume (over 2 lakh appear yearly), seat availability, and pandemic disruptions. Recent years have seen litigation spikes: from NEET-UG paper leaks to grace mark cancellations, courts have repeatedly intervened under Articles 14 (equality) and 226/32 (writs). The 2025 cycle's cut-off reduction—lowering the percentile for the third counselling round—echoes these patterns but introduces a novel layer: post-results revision affecting eligibility afresh.

This backdrop is crucial. NBEMS's affidavit not only recounts facts but invokes principles of administrative segregation, arguing that policy tweaks fall outside its purview.

Timeline of the Cut-Off Reduction

The sequence unfolded swiftly in early 2026. On January 9, 2026 , the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare communicated its decision to NBEMS to reduce the qualifying percentile specifically for the third round of NEET-PG 2025 counselling. In strict compliance, NBEMS recalibrated the cut-offs and published revised results on January 13, 2026 . This adjustment catapulted 95,913 additional candidates into eligibility, as detailed in a category-wise chart annexed to the affidavit.

Petitioners, led by Harisharan Devgan, swiftly approached the Supreme Court, alleging caprice and prejudice to initially qualified candidates. The Union and NBEMS were directed to furnish the "rationale behind the reduction." NBEMS's response pivots on institutional boundaries: "On January 9, 2026, the Ministry informed the NBEMS of the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET-PG counselling. In compliance with the Ministry's decision, the NBEMS revised the cut-off and published the revised results on January 13."

This timeline illustrates bureaucratic efficiency but fuels debates on transparency—was the reduction data-driven, responding to unfilled seats from prior rounds, or a seat-filling expedient?

Key Assertions in NBEMS's Counter-Affidavit

The counter-affidavit is a masterclass in defensive advocacy, methodically delineating roles. NBEMS declares: "its role is limited to conducting the NEET-PG exam, evaluating the results and handling over the results to the NMC." Further: "The role of NBEMS is strictly limited to conducting the NEET PG examination and handing over the final results to the concerned Counselling Authority i.e. the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and it has no role whatsoever in the decision regarding the reduction of the qualifying percentile for NEET PG 2025."

The decision, it contends, resides "within the exclusive domain of the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission (NMC)." A pivotal argument invokes natural justice: "as a result of the lowering of the cut-off, 95913 additional candidates have now become eligible to participate in the counselling for NEET PG 2025. Hence, any decision of the Court will impact those candidates, and no decision can be made without hearing them."

The affidavit appends a chart breaking down additions: presumptively thousands in SC/ST/OBC/general quotas, amplifying equity concerns. This not only rebuts petitioners' locus but elevates the stakes, potentially requiring joinder of affected parties.

Supreme Court's Directives and Bench

The Supreme Court, alive to the domino effect, issued directives seeking explanations from the Union and NBEMS. The matter is slated for hearing "today" before Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe—veterans in public interest and administrative law disputes. Narasimha J., known for probing regulatory overreach (e.g., in environmental PILs), and Aradhe J., with expertise in service matters, signal rigorous scrutiny.

Prior orders reflect judicial caution: no interim stays on counselling, preserving status quo while probing merits.

Bolstering with Delhi High Court Precedent

NBEMS buttresses its stance with Sanchit Seth vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 848/2026), where the Delhi High Court dismissed a parallel challenge. The ruling upheld the cut-off lowering as a legitimate exercise of executive policy, deferring to specialized regulators. This precedent, though from a constitutional court, carries persuasive weight in the Supreme Court, potentially narrowing the dispute to procedural fairness.

Legal Ramifications: Authority, Equity, and Natural Justice

At heart, this is administrative law theater. NBEMS invokes the doctrine of ultra vires indirectly—arguing Ministry/NMC's domain under NMC Act, 2019 (Sections 14-15 on standards). Petitioners likely counter with arbitrariness under Article 14, questioning if the reduction discriminates against higher scorers now competing with lower ones.

Central is audi alteram partem : NBEMS's third-party plea aligns with Maneka Gandhi principles, mandating hearings for affected interests. Reversing now could upend legitimate expectations of 95,913 candidates, invoking promissory estoppel. Courts have balanced this in exam cases ( e.g., K. Vinod Kumar v. Sree Vidyanikethan —no re-evaluation absent mala fides).

Broader: Does this erode meritocracy? Or fill seats amid doctor shortages (NMC data: 1:1000 doctor-population ratio)? Analysis suggests judicial deference unless irrationality proven, per Tata Cellular standards.

Broader Impacts on Medical Admissions and Legal Practice

The ripple effects are seismic. Counselling delays could cascade to 2026 cycles, exacerbating seat vacancies (last year ~10% unfilled). For reserved categories, added eligibles may intensify competition, testing reservation matrices.

Legal practitioners in education/constitutional law gain ammunition: affidavits emphasizing silos curb vicarious liability claims. Expect template petitions citing this for future tweaks (JEE, CLAT). Firms specializing in service/PILs may see influx, advising regulators on bulletproof notifications.

Ethically, it spotlights equity—rural/underserved candidates benefit from lowered bars, aligning with Indra Sawhney affirmative action. Yet, dilution risks quality; NMC must justify empirically.

What Lies Ahead in the Supreme Court

As the bench hears arguments, outcomes range from upholding (policy deference), mandating rationale disclosure, to limited relief sans reversal. Clarity on inter-agency roles could standardize exam governance, curbing litigation. For now, 95,913 dreams pivot on judicial wisdom— a reminder that in India's admission wars, law is the ultimate scalpel.

This saga encapsulates regulatory flux in medical education, urging stakeholders toward transparent, litmus-tested reforms.