Back
Supreme Court to Hear NEET-PG Cut-Off Challenge April 28
In a closely watched development for India's medical education landscape, the has scheduled a detailed hearing on April 28, 2026, for a batch of petitions challenging the unprecedented reduction in the qualifying percentile for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025-26. A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe will delve into whether this sharp drop—from the 50th percentile for general category candidates to as low as the 7th percentile, and even zero for reserved categories—compromises the rigorous standards essential for postgraduate medical training. Petitioners argue it dilutes merit and endangers public health under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, while the Centre counters that it merely facilitates seat allocation without affecting competence, given all candidates hold MBBS degrees. With over 1,100 seats lying vacant amid high private college fees, the case pits merit versus access , promising significant ramifications for administrative law in education.
Background on the NEET-PG Cut-Off Controversy
NEET-PG serves as the national entrance exam for admission to MD/MS and PG Diploma courses across India, conducted by the . Designed to create a merit-based ranking for limited seats, it traditionally sets qualifying percentiles to ensure only competent MBBS graduates proceed to specialized training.
The controversy erupted with a January 13, 2026, notice from NBEMS for the third round of counselling. The reductions were stark:
| Category | Original Percentile (Marks out of 800) | Reduced Percentile (Marks) |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------|
| General/EWS | 50th (276) | 7th (103) |
| General PwBD | 45th (255) | 5th (90) |
| SC/ST/OBC (incl. PwBD)| 40th (235) | 0th (negative, e.g., -40) |
For reserved categories, the bar was effectively lowered to allow even candidates with negative scores to qualify. This move came after two rounds of counselling left thousands of seats unfilled, prompting petitioners to file PILs decrying it as "arbitrary" and transformative of NEET-PG from a "national screening mechanism" into " an instrument certifying failure as eligibility ."
Reports indicate around 1,140 seats remained vacant nationwide, not due to a dearth of qualifiers but high fees in private deemed universities—often exceeding ₹25-50 lakhs annually. The recently directed colleges to cap MBBS fees based on a 4.5-year academic duration and cancelled the special stray vacancy round, deeming post-February 28, 2026, admissions invalid.
Supreme Court Proceedings So Far
The matter first surfaced before the Supreme Court on February 6, 2026, when
Justice PS Narasimha
directed NBEMS to file an affidavit explaining the rationale. Observing the tension between
"maintaining standards and ensuring that seats do not go unfilled,"
the bench highlighted the need for balance.
In a recent hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan , representing petitioners, submitted that " there was no shortage of qualified candidates to fill the available seats without necessitating a reduction in the cut-off ." He emphasized that qualified students were deterred by prohibitive fees, not cut-offs. Countering this, Senior Advocate DS Naidu , for a supporting candidate, aligned with the Centre: all NEET-PG aspirants are licensed MBBS doctors, ensuring baseline competence.
The bench refrained from detailed arguments, listing the matter for a "fuller hearing" on April 28, 2026, while noting it would " examine whether the sharp reduction in the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025-26 affects standards in postgraduate medical education ."
NBEMS clarified its limited role—conducting the exam and providing results—while the Centre's affidavit asserted NEET-PG is " primarily a ranking exam used to allocate postgraduate seats, not a test of minimum competence ," already vetted via MBBS and state licensing.
Petitioners' Arguments: Safeguarding Standards and Fairness
Petitions, including PILs, describe the reduction as " unprecedented and extreme ," arguing it violates constitutional mandates. Under , the change mid-process alters the " rules of the game " post-exam, breaching legitimate expectations and equality. is invoked for the right to health, warning that " lowering the bar to this extent could weaken the quality of postgraduate medical training, with possible implications for patient care and public health ."
Petitioners contend qualified candidates with "good scores" abound, rendering the reduction unnecessary. They highlight how negative cut-offs prioritize failure over merit, potentially flooding PG programs with underprepared doctors, undermining the three-year supervised training's rigor.
Centre and Supporters' Defense: Access Without Dilution
The Government of India defends the policy, stating postgraduate competence is assessed at exit via MD/MS exams requiring 50% in theory and practicals. "
All candidates are licensed doctors and undergo a rigorous three-year postgraduate training programme
,
"the affidavit notes, positioning NEET-PG as a"
gateway" for inter se merit, not absolute competency.
Supporters like Adv. Naidu reinforce that the decision " does not dilute standards ," as MBBS clears the competence threshold. Vacant seats, they argue, waste public resources, justifying flexibility in counselling rounds.
Key Legal Issues at Stake
This case crystallizes tensions in administrative law governing competitive exams. Central is doctrines of arbitrariness and proportionality under : Was the reduction reasoned, or a post-hoc fix for policy failures like unchecked private fees? Past Supreme Court rulings, such as in NEET uniformity cases (e.g., 2016 Christian Medical College challenge), affirm single-window systems to curb malpractices, but also stress merit preservation.
's expansive right to health—encompassing quality medical services (e.g., )—raises stakes: Does sub-standard PG intake imperil patients? Courts may scrutinize NBEMS/NMC's rulemaking powers under the NMC Act, 2019, for procedural fairness.
Legitimate expectation doctrine ( ) could void mid-process changes, while equity demands balancing access (Art 21's affirmative aspect) against standards.
Broader Context and Related Developments
The saga unfolds amid NEET-PG turbulence: 2025 saw delays, and Parliament noted persistent vacancies despite reductions. NMC's fee cap directive and stray round cancellation signal regulatory tightening. High fees in deemed universities—untethered from government quotas—emerge as root cause, sparking "fee barrier vs. merit" debates.
Comparatively, NEET-UG cut-offs have faced similar scrutiny, but PG's specialized nature amplifies concerns.
Potential Implications for Legal Practice and Medical Education
For legal professionals, a ruling could spawn precedents for challenging exam policies, boosting PILs in education/admin law. Lawyers specializing in health/constitutional law may see increased mandates, advising on NMC compliance or fee disputes.
Medically, dilution risks eroding PG quality, with untrained specialists impacting healthcare (India's doctor-patient ratio: 1:1456 per WHO). Policy-wise, it may prompt fee rationalization, unified counselling, or percentile recalibrations.
Looking Ahead to April 28 Hearing
As Justices Narasimha and Aradhe prepare for oral arguments, stakeholders await clarity. Will the Court mandate status quo, direct seat-filling safeguards, or uphold flexibility? The verdict could redefine NEET-PG's sanctity, ensuring merit endures amid access pressures. Legal observers predict a nuanced order, balancing constitutional imperatives with pragmatic seat utilization.
This hearing underscores judiciary's pivotal role in safeguarding professional standards while addressing systemic inequities in India's medical pipeline.
