NBEMS Informs Supreme Court of Massive Eligibility Expansion for NEET PG Counselling
The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has formally notified the Supreme Court of India that a significant policy change has dramatically expanded the pool of candidates eligible for NEET PG counselling 2025. According to an affidavit submitted to the court, the reduction of the qualifying cut-off percentile has resulted in 95,913 additional candidates becoming eligible to participate in the crucial counselling process.
NBEMS Distances Itself from Policy Decision
In its detailed submission, NBEMS explicitly clarified that it played no role in the decision to lower the qualifying percentiles. The examination body emphasized that its function is strictly limited to conducting the NEET PG examination in a fair and transparent manner, evaluating answer sheets, and publishing results based on directions from competent authorities.
"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," stated the affidavit sworn by the body's law officer.
The organization pointed out 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).
Implementation Timeline and Revised Criteria
The process unfolded through a clear administrative chain:
- 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
- NBEMS received directions to publish revised results accordingly
- The examination body issued the official notification on January 13 in compliance
- Updated results were forwarded to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) the same day
The revised criteria implemented substantial reductions across categories:
- Unreserved candidates: Minimum qualifying percentile reduced from 50th to 7th percentile
- Unreserved Persons with Disabilities: Reduced to 5th percentile
- Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes: Percentile reduced to zero
This adjustment corresponds to cut-off scores that allow candidates with marks as low as minus 40 out of 800 to participate in the counselling process, representing one of the most significant eligibility expansions in recent medical education history.
Primary Reason: Addressing Vacant Postgraduate Seats
The dramatic policy shift came as a direct response to a pressing national concern. Authorities moved to widen the pool of eligible candidates after more than 18,000 postgraduate medical seats remained vacant across the country following initial counselling rounds.
NBEMS presented comprehensive data before the Supreme Court demonstrating how the reduction significantly expanded eligibility. The examination body argued that any judicial intervention at this stage would directly affect candidates who are not parties to the ongoing legal challenge.
Legal Challenge Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is currently hearing petitions questioning the legality of the cut-off reduction. Petitioners have raised constitutional concerns, arguing that the decision:
- Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
- Fundamentally alters eligibility conditions after the selection process had already commenced
The court had earlier issued notices to multiple authorities on February 4, including the Union government, NBEMS, NMC, and other relevant bodies.
Reference to Delhi High Court Ruling
NBEMS also highlighted 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
- Insufficient empirical data to support concerns about dilution of merit
The High Court observed that lowering the eligibility threshold for counselling does not by itself determine admission, which continues to depend on merit during the actual seat allocation process.
The Core Legal Question
The case now presents the Supreme Court with a narrow but consequential question: whether the eligibility threshold for a national entrance examination can be recalibrated after results are declared 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 consistently maintained that it is not the decision-maker in this dispute. Its affidavit frames the organization 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 holds legal weight when the consequences reach candidates already inside the counselling system.
