NEET-PG cut-off reduction does not certify incompetence, govt tells SC

The Union Health Ministry has defended its decision to sharply lower the NEET-PG qualifying percentile for the 2025-26 academic session, telling the Supreme Court that a reduced cut-off “does not certify incompetence.”

In an affidavit filed by the Directorate General of Health Services in response to a public interest litigation, the ministry said the move followed extensive deliberations after a significant number of postgraduate medical seats remained vacant, including in government institutions.

“It is submitted that the NEET-PG is not to certify minimum competence, which stands established by the MBBS qualification itself of the candidates, but to generate an inter se merit list for allocation of limited postgraduate seats. The NEET PG scores are a function of relative performance and examination design, which cannot be construed as determinative of clinical incompetence,” the affidavit stated.

The ministry described the revision of the qualifying percentile as a policy decision and argued that it falls outside the scope of judicial review.

It maintained that "reduction in percentile do not affect clinical competence,” emphasizing that an MBBS degree already confirms foundational medical capability.

According to the affidavit, the undergraduate program involves intensive training across 16 to 17 specialties along with a mandatory one-year internship.

Data placed before the court showed that after the completion of Round 2 of counseling for NEET-PG 2025, 9,621 seats under the All India Quota remained vacant across specialties.

Of these, 5,213 were unfilled in government medical colleges. Overall, about 70,000 postgraduate seats were available for 224,029 candidates, including 31,742 seats under the All India Quota.

The ministry clarified that the percentile reduction “was not undertaken to benefit private medical institutions, but to prevent large-scale vacancy of seats, including in government institutions created through public expenditure.”

Addressing concerns related to patient safety, the affidavit stated, “It is respectfully submitted that concerns regarding patient safety are misplaced. All candidates admitted to postgraduate courses are licensed MBBS practitioners entitled to practice independently.”

It further noted that postgraduate medical education is “a structured three-year supervised training program, and final competence is rigorously assessed at the exit level through MD/MS examinations.”

During the hearing on Monday, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe sought justification from the Centre.

“You will have to satisfy us that this drastic reduction in the cut-off, virtually bringing it to zero, does not affect the quality of the education. We are concerned about the quality of the medical education,” the bench observed.

Senior Advocates Pinki Anand and Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, contended that lowering the qualifying percentile during the counseling process violates established Supreme Court principles and amounts to “a violation of the right to health, dilution of medical standards beyond proportionality.”

The case is scheduled for further hearing on April 21.