NEET PG cut off controversy explained: Here is what has happened so far

NEET PG cut off controversy explained

A late-stage decision to drastically lower qualifying cut-offs for NEET PG 2025 has triggered one of the most serious debates in recent years over merit and governance in India’s medical education system. The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), with the Centre’s approval, reduced eligibility thresholds across all categories ahead of Round 3 counselling, allowing even candidates with zero or negative scores to qualify.The move, aimed at filling thousands of vacant postgraduate medical seats, has drawn sharp criticism from doctors’ associations, resident bodies and aspirants, who argue that administrative expediency is being prioritised over academic standards and patient safety. Protests by medical groups and a public interest litigation now before the Supreme Court have enlarged the controversy beyond admissions into broader questions about transparency, accountability and the future of specialist training in India.

Lowering the bar: Inside the NEET PG cut-off overhaul

According to the official NBEMS notification adopted for Round 3 counselling:

This means candidates with negative marks can now technically be declared eligible for counselling, a first in NEET PG history and a marked departure from the usual merit thresholds. Importantly, the change affects eligibility only; original NEET PG 2025 ranks declared on August 19, 2025 remain unchanged.Authorities said this cut-off was necessary to include more candidates for Round 3 counseling for the academic session 2025-26 because huge numbers of unfilled postgraduate seats were reflected in seat matrices.

The official rationale behind the cut-off revision

Authorities, including the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), have defended the cut-off revision as a pragmatic measure aimed at addressing large-scale seat vacancies rather than redefining merit. Officials have repeatedly maintained that NEET PG is a ranking examination for candidates who are already qualified MBBS doctors, and that lowering the qualifying percentile only expands eligibility for counselling without changing scores, ranks or the merit list itself.According a TNN report, India has approximately 65,000–70,000 postgraduate medical seats, with thousands remaining vacant even after two rounds of counselling. Leaving these seats unfilled, they argue, would weaken the functioning of teaching hospitals — particularly government institutions that rely heavily on postgraduate residents for clinical services and patient care.NBEMS has also stressed that the revised cut-offs do not affect rank-based seat allocation, which continues to be governed strictly by candidates’ original NEET PG 2025 scores and merit positions during counselling, as reported by TNN.

Pushback from the medical community

The decision has drawn strong reactions from medical associations and resident doctors, who argue that even if all candidates are MBBS-qualified, postgraduate training standards should not be diluted:

FAIMA and patient safety concerns

The Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA) strongly criticised the move, calling it “unprecedented and illogical”. According to a PTI report, FAIMA president Dr Rohan Krishnan wrote to Union Health Minister J P Nadda warning that allowing candidates with negative marks to enter postgraduate medical training undermines academic and ethical standards. He cautioned that such dilution could compromise the quality of future specialists and pose risks to patient safety, particularly in government hospitals, while also setting a damaging precedent for India’s medical education system.Dr. Krishnan also told ANI that low-scoring candidates might disproportionately fill seats in private medical colleges — potentially creating a fee-driven nexus rather than a merit-based system.

FORDA: ‘A lottery’ and institutional breakdown

The Federation of Resident Doctors’ Association India (FORDA), in an official press release shared on X, described the revised NEET PG 2025 cut-off as turning admissions into “a lottery” rather than a merit-based process. The association framed the decision as the culmination of a series of governance failures surrounding NEET PG 2025 — including opaque decision-making, non-disclosure of answer keys, arbitrary centre allocations and prolonged counselling delays.In the same press release, FORDA explained that the candidates suffered for months in limbo, pointing to changes in examination modalities, postponed examination dates, and a lack of transparency in the normalization process. The cut-off revision, according to them, symbolizes an institutional failure, not policy change.FORDA also wrote on this issue to Union Health Minister J P Nadda while mentioning that the move undermines merit, devalues years of preparation by aspirants and has the potential to erode public trust in the medical education system. The association further alleged that the decision disproportionately benefits private medical colleges by enabling lower-scoring candidates to secure seats at high fees, prioritising institutional interests over merit.

Merit, vacancies and the bigger question

Critics ask: If candidates with negative marks can be declared eligible, can NEET PG still function as a credible benchmark? NEET PG is not a general college entrance test; it is the primary gateway to specialist medical training in India, shaping the competence of the next generation of doctors. Lowering minimum eligibility to zero — and below — forces stakeholders to confront whether the system is prioritising seat occupancy over standards.Medical bodies have called for the restoration of merit-based cut-offs and the formation of a high-level committee that includes NBEMS, the National Medical Commission (NMC), and resident doctor representatives to review cut-off policies and improve transparency and evidence-based decision-making.

PIL filed against revised NEET PG cut-offs

This controversy has now reached the Supreme Court where a public interest litigation (PIL)has been filed questioning the drastic cut-off decrease in NEET PG 2025 cutoff scores. The petitioners have pleaded that the change in cutoff criteria at a time when the examination and counselling cycle had already begun is not acceptable on the criteria of fairness, transparency, and predictability in large-scale medicine entrance exams. They have further argued that it will undermine merit and impact patient safety.Media reports say the Supreme Court will hear the case soon, highlighting the seriousness of the issue and its impact on medical education and healthcare across the country.

What this means for students and healthcare

For aspirants, the revised cut-offs expand eligibility for counselling, bringing a much larger pool of candidates into Round 3. However, seat allotment continues to be governed by original NEET PG ranks, meaning higher-scoring candidates will still be prioritised in the actual allocation process.The health system would directly be benefited by filling up long-vacant postgraduate seats and easing shortages of residents in teaching hospitals. But the critics caution that such sharp reductions in eligibility thresholds compromise the rigour in specialist training and, over time, harm the quality of care in an already stretched public health system.

The road ahead

NEET PG cutoff controversy is about more than simply an adjustment to a criterion for eligibility: it has become a rallying point for issues relating to meritocracy and good governance in medical school policy in India. While counseling sessions are under way and the Supreme Court is set to take up the challenge to this policy in court, all concerned in both health and educational circles will be waiting to see what might come to pass.