Supreme Court Examines PIL Against Reduced NEET PG 2025 Cutoff, Next Hearing on Feb 6
Supreme Court Examines PIL Against Reduced NEET PG 2025 Cutoff
The Supreme Court of India has taken up a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the recent decision to sharply reduce the qualifying cutoff for NEET PG 2025. The case has attracted nationwide attention as it directly questions the standards followed in postgraduate medical admissions.
A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the matter and issued notice to the Union Government, National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), National Medical Commission (NMC), and other concerned authorities.
The court has directed all respondents to submit their replies within one week. The matter is now listed for the next hearing on 6 February 2026.
The controversy began after NBEMS issued a notification dated 13 January 2026, drastically lowering the minimum qualifying percentiles for NEET PG 2025 counselling. This move allowed candidates with extremely low scores, including zero and negative marks in certain categories, to become eligible for counselling.
According to the revised criteria, the qualifying percentiles were reduced to levels never seen before in NEET PG history, raising serious concerns among doctors, educators, and medical bodies.
Who Filed the PIL and Why?
The PIL has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by United Doctors Front (UDF) National President Dr. Lakshya Mittal along with other concerned stakeholders. The petition is being argued by Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, Advocate Adarsh Singh, and Advocate-on-Record Neema.
The petitioners argue that postgraduate medical education is a highly specialised and sensitive field where minimum academic standards are critical. Allowing candidates with abnormally low scores into PG training, they say, directly affects patient safety and public health.
The petition claims that the cutoff reduction violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law, by placing poorly performing candidates on the same footing as meritorious ones.
It also invokes Article 21, stating that lowering academic standards in medical education endangers the right to life of patients who depend on competent medical professionals. The plea further argues that the decision goes against the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which mandates maintenance of minimum standards in medical education.
While the Supreme Court has not yet passed any final order, it has agreed to examine the issue in detail. By issuing notices to all authorities involved, the court has indicated that the matter raises important questions related to merit, fairness, and public interest.
The upcoming hearing on 6 February 2026 is expected to be crucial, as the court will review the explanations offered by NBEMS, NMC, and the Union Government.
The outcome of this case could have a major impact on the ongoing NEET PG 2025 counselling process. If the Supreme Court finds the cutoff reduction unjustified, it may direct authorities to restore higher qualifying standards or rework eligibility criteria.
On the other hand, if the decision is upheld, it could set a precedent for future counselling rounds where seat utilisation may be prioritised over competitive merit. Either way, the verdict will shape the future direction of postgraduate medical admissions in India.
Many doctors’ associations, resident doctors, and medical teachers have welcomed the Supreme Court’s intervention. They believe that postgraduate trainees play a critical role in hospital care and must meet a minimum academic benchmark.
Concerns have also been raised that compromising entry standards could affect long-term quality of healthcare delivery, especially in teaching hospitals.
