NEET-PG Cut-Off Reduction Won’t Affect Doctors’ Competence, Centre Tells Supreme Court
Centre Tells Supreme Court NEET-PG Cut-Off Reduction Will Not Impact Doctors’ Competence
The Union Government has informed the Supreme Court of India that the recent reduction in the NEET-PG qualifying cut-off percentile will not compromise the competence of doctors, as all candidates appearing for postgraduate medical admissions have already qualified MBBS and completed their mandatory internship.
The Centre’s submission came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the decision to lower the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025. The petition argues that reducing the cut-off dilutes merit and may adversely impact healthcare standards. However, the government has strongly defended the move, calling it a policy decision aimed at preventing seat wastage and strengthening the healthcare system.
MBBS Qualification Already Establishes Competence
In its affidavit before the court, the Centre clarified that NEET-PG is not a test of minimum medical competence. According to the government, medical competence is already established when a candidate successfully completes the MBBS degree and the compulsory rotating internship.
The government argued that MBBS graduates are legally permitted to practice medicine independently after registration. Therefore, lowering the NEET-PG qualifying percentile does not create “incompetent doctors” but merely expands eligibility for postgraduate education.
The Centre further emphasized that postgraduate training (MD/MS) takes place under strict supervision in recognized institutions. Final competence is assessed through rigorous university examinations and practical evaluations at the end of the course.
Objective: Prevent Wastage of Seats
The decision to reduce the cut-off percentile was taken in consultation with the National Medical Commission and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The government stated that a significant number of postgraduate medical seats remained vacant even after multiple rounds of counselling.
Vacant seats, especially in non-clinical and certain specialty branches, represent a loss of valuable national resources. Medical colleges have infrastructure, faculty, and hospital facilities that go underutilized if seats remain empty. By lowering the qualifying percentile, authorities aim to increase the pool of eligible candidates for subsequent counselling rounds.
The Centre described the measure as a pragmatic administrative step rather than an arbitrary relaxation of standards.
Merit-Based Allotment Still in Place
Addressing concerns about merit dilution, the government clarified that lowering the cut-off only increases eligibility. Actual seat allocation continues to be based on rank, preference, and counselling rules.
In other words, candidates with higher scores will still get priority in seat allotment. The percentile reduction does not alter the merit list; it merely allows more candidates to participate in counselling.
The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, which conducts NEET-PG, has also informed the court that it has no role in policy decisions regarding cut-off percentile changes. Its responsibility is limited to conducting the examination and publishing results as per government directives.
Concerns Raised in the PIL
The petitioners have argued that drastically lowering the percentile could allow candidates with very low scores to enter postgraduate programs. They claim this may affect public health and undermine the principle of merit-based admissions.
However, the Centre countered that postgraduate medical education includes continuous evaluation, supervised training, and strict exit examinations. No relaxation has been granted in final qualifying standards for MD or MS degrees.
The government also pointed out that similar percentile reductions have been implemented in previous years without any evidence of declining medical standards.
Broader Implications
The case has sparked debate within the medical community. While some aspirants welcome the move as a second chance to secure seats, others believe that maintaining higher qualifying benchmarks preserves academic excellence.
The Supreme Court is currently examining whether the decision falls within the scope of administrative discretion or whether it violates constitutional principles related to fairness and merit.
For now, the Centre maintains that the policy balances two key priorities: optimal utilization of medical education infrastructure and continued assurance of quality healthcare services.
The court’s final ruling will likely have a significant impact on future NEET-PG admissions policies and may set an important precedent regarding the extent of government authority in regulating medical education standards.
