New Delhi: Calling the decision to lower the NEET-PG 2025 qualifying percentile a “policy matter”, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) told the Supreme Court Monday that the issue falls outside the purview of courts. It said the decision was taken by expert bodies after considering the number of vacant seats and the country’s healthcare needs.
In an affidavit filed through DGHS, the central government said, “It is a settled principle that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in academic and policy decisions taken by expert bodies unless such decisions are shown to be manifestly arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of statutory or constitutional provisions.”
The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) on 13 January reduced the qualifying percentile across categories to fill over 18,000 vacant postgraduate medical seats in government and private medical colleges. Following the move, 95,913 additional candidates became eligible for counselling.
Under the revised rules, the qualifying percentile was sharply reduced across categories: to zero for candidates from the reserved category, to the 7th percentile for the general category, and to the 5th percentile for persons with disabilities in the general category.
In effect, this meant even candidates with very low—and in some cases negative—scores became eligible for admission, triggering public criticism after reports said such candidates had secured postgraduate medical seats.
In its latest affidavit, the Centre quoted earlier judgments, including State of Himachal Pradesh vs Satpal Saini and Premium Granites vs State of Tamil Nadu, and argued that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in academic and policy decisions taken by expert bodies.
“The peril of adopting an incorrect policy lies in democratic accountability to the people…the court does not have power or function to direct the executive to adopt a particular policy…It is wise to remind us of these limits and wiser still to enforce them without exception,” the affidavit said, quoting the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Satpal Saini.
The Centre also cited Premium Granites Vs State of T.N., where the top court held that it is not for judges to decide whether a public policy is wise or better, unless it violates fundamental or statutory rights.
The government has sought dismissal of the petition challenging the reduction, saying it is devoid of merit.
The petitioner had submitted in court that reduction in the qualifying percentile primarily benefits private medical institutions by filling high-fee seats with lower-scoring candidates. During Monday’s hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the rationale behind the sharp reduction in percentile and asked the Centre to explain how such a decision aligns with maintaining standards in medical education.
Appearing for the lead petitioner, Advocate Satyam Singh Rajput objected to the counter affidavit submitted by the central government. “The Union appears primarily concerned with filling vacant seats rather than safeguarding the quality and standards of medical education. Reducing the cut-off in such a manner compromises healthcare standards and poses a serious risk to patient safety,” he submitted before the top court.
The Supreme Court, in turn, directed the government to file a detailed and satisfactory affidavit justifying the basis for lowering the cut-off, including to near-zero levels in certain categories.
The matter is next listed for hearing on 24th March.
Also Read: Why NEET-PG’s percentile cut-off was lowered to 0, and why doctors are angry
‘NEET-PG not an assessment of minimum competence’
After the NBEMS defended the move in an affidavit last week, saying the reduction helps fill vacant seats without compromising merit since admissions remain rank-based, the Centre has now reiterated its stand in a separate affidavit filed by the DGHS, once again justifying the decision.
It said NEET-PG is only a ranking exam to decide who gets limited postgraduate seats, and not an examination to assess whether a doctor is qualified to practise medicine. That competence, it argued, is already established through the MBBS qualification. “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 Centre said that only candidates with a recognised MBBS degree and a completed compulsory internship can appear for NEET-PG, and MBBS students must secure at least 50 percent marks separately in theory and practical examinations to qualify.
“Even after reduction of percentile,the allotment of seats is done on the basis of merit and references, supported by the candidates. Thus, this measure does not compromise academic standards, does not alter inter se merit, and does not confer any undue advantage upon any class of institutions,” the affidavit said.
Addressing low or negative scores, the Centre noted that the exam consists of 200 multiple-choice questions with 25 percent negative marking.
Scores, it said, are a function of relative performance and examination design and cannot be treated as a marker of minimum competence.
It also submitted that in NEET-PG 2025, after completion of the Round 2 of counselling, a total of 9,621 seats remained vacant in All India Quota (AIQ) across various specialties. Of these, 5,213 seats were vacant in state-run medical colleges alone. “This factual position conclusively demonstrates that the reduction of percentile was not undertaken to benefit private medical institutions, but to prevent large-scale vacancy of seats, including in Government institutions created through public expenditure,” it said.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)