NEET PG counselling 2025: Cut-off reduction makes 95,913 more eligible; NBEMS tells SC it had no role

The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has informed the Supreme Court of India that 95,913 additional candidates have become eligible to participate in counselling for NEET PG counselling 2025 after the qualifying cut-off percentile was lowered.

In an affidavit placed before the court, the examination body said that any interference with the revised criteria at this stage would directly affect these newly eligible candidates, according to PTI.

“It is ex-facie apparent that pursuant to the lowering of cut off, 95,913 additional candidates have now become eligible to participate in the counselling for NEET PG 2025,” the affidavit stated, PTI reports.

NBEMS distances itself from policy decision

NBEMS told the court that it had no role in deciding the reduction of qualifying percentiles and that its function is limited to conducting the examination and publishing results based on directions issued by competent authorities, IANS reports.

In a reply sworn by its law officer, the body said: “The role of NBEMS is strictly limited to conducting the NEET PG examination in a fair and transparent manner, evaluating answers, and handing over the final results to the concerned Counselling Authority.”

The affidavit added that the decision to revise the percentile “falls exclusively within the domain” of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the National Medical Commission (NMC).

How the revision was implemented

According to the submission, the Union Health Ministry communicated on January 9 that the qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET PG counselling 2025-26 had been reduced and directed NBEMS to publish revised results. NBEMS said it issued the notification on January 13 in compliance and forwarded the updated results to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) the same day, IANS reports.

Under the revised criteria:

• The minimum qualifying percentile for Unreserved candidates was reduced from the 50th percentile to the 7th percentile.
• For Unreserved Persons with Disabilities candidates, it was reduced to the 5th percentile.
• For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes candidates, the percentile was reduced to zero.

This corresponds to cut-off scores that allow candidates with marks as low as minus 40 out of 800 to participate in the counselling process.

Reason cited: Vacant postgraduate seats

The revision came after more than 18,000 postgraduate medical seats remained vacant across the country. Authorities moved to widen the pool of eligible candidates to ensure these seats could be filled during subsequent counselling rounds.

NBEMS placed data before the court to show that the reduction significantly expanded eligibility and argued that any judicial order now would affect candidates who are not parties to the case, IANS reports.

Challenge before the court

The Supreme Court is hearing petitions that question the legality of the cut-off reduction. Petitioners have argued that the decision violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and alters eligibility conditions after the selection process had already begun.

The court had earlier issued notices to the Union government, NBEMS, NMC, and other authorities on February 4.

Reference to earlier High Court ruling

NBEMS also pointed to a similar challenge that was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. In its January 21 decision, the High Court found no arbitrariness in lowering the eligibility percentile and held that concerns about dilution of merit were not supported by empirical data, IANS reports.

The High Court observed that lowering the eligibility threshold for counselling does not by itself determine admission, which continues to depend on merit during seat allocation.

The issue before the bench

The case now places before the Supreme Court a narrow but consequential question. Whether the eligibility threshold for a national entrance examination can be recalibrated after results are declared in order to address unfilled seats. And whether such recalibration affects fairness in a process that functions as both a ranking mechanism and a gatekeeping test.

NBEMS has maintained that it is not the decision maker in this dispute. Its affidavit frames the organisation as an implementing agency acting on directions issued by the health ministry and regulatory authorities. The court’s eventual ruling will determine whether that administrative distinction is sufficient in law when the consequences reach candidates already inside the counselling system.
(with inputs from Agencies)
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!