A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) decision to drastically reduce the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025–26, with the petition claiming the new thresholds have been brought down to “abnormally low, zero, and even negative levels”.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been moved through advocate Satyam Singh Rajput.
According to the petition, the decision to reduce the qualifying criteria in a postgraduate medical entrance test strikes at the heart of merit-based admissions, and amounts to an arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise of power.
The petitioners have contended that the impugned notice dated January 13, 2026, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the right to equality, and the right to life, and raises serious concerns over patient safety and public health.
The PIL argues that lowering the minimum qualifying standards at the postgraduate level is not just an academic issue but a matter with direct consequences for the healthcare system.
The plea claims that if minimum eligibility benchmarks are diluted, the quality of specialist medical training could be compromised, ultimately affecting the standard of treatment patients receive.
The petition also flags broader concerns about the integrity and credibility of the medical profession, stating that large-scale dilution of cut-offs could undermine public trust in postgraduate medical education and specialist qualifications.
A key point of the challenge is the statutory framework governing medical education.
The petitioners have argued that the dilution of merit runs contrary to the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, 2019, which mandates the regulation and maintenance of standards in medical education.
The PIL further claims that any departure from established qualifying norms without adequate justification would be contrary to settled legal principles on maintaining minimum standards in professional education.
Seeking the court’s intervention, the petitioners have prayed for directions quashing the January 13 notification, and for steps to ensure that minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical admissions are protected.
ALSO READ
- Setback for Justice Yashwant Varma as Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Speaker’s move on removal motion
- Wait continues for parents as Supreme Court reserves order on passive euthanasia plea
- 'Jana Nayagan' censor row: Big boost for Vijay as Supreme Court case hearing likely to be listed on January 15
They have urged the Supreme Court to treat the matter as one involving public interest, given the cascading impact on medical standards and health outcomes.
The petition comes at a time when medical entrance examinations and admission processes have frequently come under judicial scrutiny, with courts repeatedly emphasising transparency, fairness, and adherence to statutory norms in professional education.
The plea is likely to be listed in the coming weeks
