New Delhi: The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has told the Supreme Court that it had no role whatsoever in the decision to reduce the qualifying cut-off percentile for NEET-PG 2025–26, adding that its function is strictly limited to conducting the examination and publishing results as per directions issued by the competent authorities.
In a short reply sworn by NBEMS Law Officer Mohd. Sameen, it was stated that the petition challenging the January 13 notification issued by the NBEMS — which reduced the qualifying cut-off percentiles for postgraduate medical admissions to abnormally low, zero, and even negative levels after the declaration of results and completion of two rounds of counselling — is “not maintainable and deserves to be rejected”.
“The answering Respondent respectfully submits that 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, namely the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC),” the affidavit stated.
It clarified that it had “no role whatsoever in the decision regarding reduction of the qualifying percentile for NEET PG 2025” and that the decision “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).
According to the affidavit, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, through a communication dated January 9, informed it that the qualifying percentile cut-off for the third round of NEET-PG 2025–26 counselling had been reduced and directed it to publish revised results accordingly.
“In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the answering Respondent published the Impugned Notice dated 13.01.2026 notifying the revised cut-off scores for NEET PG 2025,” the reply said, adding that the revised results were forwarded to the MCC on the same day.
As per the revised criteria, the minimum qualifying percentile for Unreserved (UR) candidates was reduced to the 7th percentile (cut-off score 103 out of 800), for UR-PwD candidates to the 5th percentile (90 marks), and for SC/ST/OBC candidates to the 0th percentile, corresponding to a cut-off score of minus 40.
Placing data on record, the NBEMS informed the apex court that 95,913 additional candidates became eligible to participate in counselling pursuant to the lowering of the cut-off.
“From a perusal of the aforesaid table, it is ex facie apparent that pursuant to the lowering of cut off 95913 additional candidates have now become eligible to participate in the counselling for NEET PG 2025,” the affidavit stated.
It further contended that any order passed in the present writ petition would directly affect these candidates, who are not before the Supreme Court, and “on this ground alone, the present petition is liable to be dismissed”.
The NBEMS also drew attention to the dismissal of a similar challenge by the Delhi High Court in the Sanchit Seth vs National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Ors case.
In its January 21 decision, the Delhi High Court found no arbitrariness in the reduction of the eligibility percentile and held that the apprehensions regarding patient safety and dilution of merit were “unfounded and not based on any empirical study”.
It had further held that “merely by lowering the eligibility criteria for counselling will not reduce the merit, as the actual admission will be based on the merit” and that expanding the pool of candidates would help ensure optimal utilisation of postgraduate medical seats.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Union government, the NBEMS, the NMC, and the MCC following a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking restoration of the original qualifying standards prescribed in the NEET-PG 2025 Information Bulletin.
The plea, filed by advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, contended that the impugned reduction is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and poses a serious threat to patient safety, public health and the integrity of postgraduate medical education.
It argued that permitting candidates with zero or negative scores to enter specialist training dilutes merit at the apex level of medical education and undermines minimum standards of professional competence.
Terming the move “unprecedented and extreme”, the petition stated that the NEET-PG, which is meant to function as a national screening mechanism, has been converted into “an instrument certifying failure as eligibility”. The PIL have also challenged the reduction on the ground that the “rules of the game” cannot be altered after the selection process has commenced and results have been declared.
