The recent, drastic reduction of the NEET-PG cut-off marks for 2025 admissions has sparked significant legal and ethical debate. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Allahabad High Court, challenging the decision by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS). Petitioner Abhinav Gaur, a lawyer, argues the move is unconstitutional. Consequently, he claims the substantial cut-off reduction undermines the fundamental sanctity of a merit-based selection process for postgraduate medical seats. Furthermore, the plea asserts this affects the fundamental right to health and life under Article 21 of the Constitution by allowing under-qualified candidates into specialist training.
Details of the Revised NEET-PG Cut-Off
Following the second round of counselling, more than 18,000 postgraduate medical seats remained vacant across India. Therefore, the NBEMS, under direction from the Union Health Ministry, drastically revised the minimum qualifying criteria to fill these seats. For instance, the original cut-off for General and EWS candidates was the 50th percentile (276/800). This was lowered to the 7th percentile, equating to a score of 103/800. Moreover, the cut-off for the General-PwBD category was reduced from 255 to 90 marks. However, the most controversial change affects the SC, ST, and OBC categories. The original minimum score of 235 (40th percentile) was reduced to a zero percentile, corresponding to a score of minus 40 out of 800. This is the first time candidates with negative marks are technically eligible for counselling in NEET-PG history.
Legal Challenge: Merit, Constitution, and Patient Safety
The PIL contends that permitting candidates with negative scores to qualify for postgraduate medical courses removes the minimum standard of medical knowledge necessary. Furthermore, the petition points out that the move violates Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity in public employment. The Federation of Resident Doctors’ Association (FORDA) also termed the decision “arbitrary,” while other medical bodies called it “unprecedented and illogical.” They argue that administrative expediency is overriding academic standards. Hence, such a compromise threatens patient safety and the quality of future specialists. Notably, this controversy has also reached the Supreme Court of India through a separate Public Interest Litigation filed by doctors and social workers, highlighting the seriousness of the issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What was the major change in the NEET-PG cut-off marks?
The most drastic change was the reduction for the SC, ST, and OBC categories from the 40th percentile (a score of 235/800) to the 0th percentile (a score of -40/800) for the 2025 counselling’s third round.
Q2: Why did NBEMS reduce the cut-off marks?
NBEMS stated the decision was a one-time measure to ensure optimal utilisation of vacant seats. Officials noted that over 18,000 postgraduate medical seats remained unfilled after the first two rounds of counselling.
Q3: What constitutional arguments are cited in the PIL?
The PIL argues the reduction is unconstitutional because it undermines the merit-based selection process, violating Article 16 (equal opportunity in public employment) and affecting the right to health and life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
References
- Plea in Allahabad HC challenges decision to reduce NEET-PG cut-off marks – ETHealthworld
- NEET PG cut off controversy explained: Here is what has happened so far – Times of India
- NEET PG 2025 Cutoff Reduction Challenged in Supreme Court – Sartha
- Notice – Reduction of percentile for NEET-PG 2025 13-01-2026 – nbems
- NEET PG cut-off row reaches Supreme Court as doctors challenge lowered scores – The Federal
- Explainer: Why lowering the NEET-PG qualifying cut-off has triggered a storm? – Mint
- NBEMS’s decision to reduce NEET PG cut-off percentile ‘unprecedented’, ‘illogical’: Medical bodies – Hindustan Times
Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated from publicly available sources and is provided for informational and educational purposes only. OC Academy does not exercise editorial control or claim authorship over this content. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider and refer to current local and national clinical guidelines.