The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) decision to drastically reduce the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26. The bench, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, took note of allegations that the standards have been diluted to "abnormally low levels," potentially allowing candidates with zero or even negative percentiles to secure postgraduate medical seats.
The controversy centers on a notice dated January 13, 2026, issued by the NBEMS. The petitioners, in the case of Harisharan Devgan v. Union of India, contend that the move to lower the cut-off primarily to fill vacant seats effectively abolishes "merit" as the foundational criterion for specialized medical education.
The plea argues that such a dilution is not merely an administrative issue but a constitutional one, violating Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life).
The petitioners have raised alarms regarding the long-term impact on the Indian healthcare system. They argue that postgraduate medicine is a field that directly impacts human life and bodily integrity.
The plea highlights:
"Institutionalising dilution of professional standards in such a field is impermissible... medicine directly implicates human life, bodily integrity and dignity."
The petition further states that the decision reduces a rigorous competitive examination to a "mere administrative formality," running contrary to the statutory mandate of the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, 2019.
While the government and NBEMS often cite the high number of vacant seats in non-clinical or less popular branches as the reason for lowering cut-offs, the petitioners suggest that this "solution" compromises the quality of specialists entering the workforce. They argue that filling seats should not come at the cost of public health and the integrity of the medical profession.
This case sets up a fundamental clash between administrative convenience (filling infrastructure) and academic excellence (meritocracy). If the Supreme Court intervenes, it could force the NMC and NBEMS to establish a "floor" for percentiles that cannot be breached, regardless of vacancy rates. A ruling in favor of the petitioners would reinforce the idea that in specialized fields like medicine, merit must remain non-negotiable to protect the "Right to Life" of patients across the country.