The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has told the Supreme Court that it had no role in the decision to reduce the qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2025–26, clarifying that its mandate is limited to conducting examinations and publishing results as directed by competent authorities.
In a sworn reply filed by NBEMS Law Officer Mohd. Sameen, the board described the petition challenging the January 13 notification, reducing the qualifying cut-off for postgraduate medical admissions to abnormally low, zero, and negative levels, as “not maintainable and liable to be rejected.”
The affidavit stated that NBEMS only evaluates exams, publishes results, and submits them to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), and had no involvement in deciding the reduction of the qualifying percentile. The board highlighted that the change was directed by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the National Medical Commission (NMC).
The Union Health Ministry, through a January 9 communication, instructed NBEMS to implement the revised percentile cut-off for the third round of NEET-PG 2025–26 counselling. Acting on this directive, NBEMS published the notice on January 13 and forwarded the revised results to MCC on the same day.
Under the revised criteria, Unreserved (UR) candidates require a 7th percentile (103/800), UR-PwD candidates a 5th percentile (90 marks), and SC/ST/OBC candidates a 0th percentile (-40 marks). NBEMS reported that 95,913 additional candidates became eligible for counselling as a result.
The board argued that any court order affecting the cut-off would directly impact these candidates, who are not party to the PIL. NBEMS also cited a precedent in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed a similar challenge in Sanchit Seth vs NBEMS & Ors, noting that lowering eligibility did not compromise merit and allowed optimal use of postgraduate seats.
The Supreme Court had issued notices to the Union government, NBEMS, NMC, and MCC following a public interest litigation filed by advocate Satyam Singh Rajput. The PIL claimed that the reduction was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and threatened patient safety and the integrity of postgraduate medical education. The petition criticized allowing candidates with zero or negative scores into specialist training, calling it “unprecedented and extreme,” and argued that rules could not be altered after results were declared.
NBEMS emphasized that the NEET-PG examination functions as a national screening tool and any administrative changes are carried out on directives from competent authorities, not at the board’s discretion. The matter is expected to be considered in further Supreme Court hearings, which could have implications for thousands of medical aspirants nationwide.
