A heated debate has sparked over the recent decision to reduce the cutoff for NEET-PG, a crucial exam for aspiring medical specialists. But here's the catch: the Centre argues that this move won't impact the competence of doctors, as they've already earned their MBBS qualifications.
In a statement submitted to the Supreme Court, the Centre clarified that NEET-PG isn't a measure of minimum competence, which is already established by the MBBS degree. Instead, it's a tool to allocate limited postgraduate seats based on a merit list.
"NEET-PG scores are relative and influenced by exam design, so they shouldn't be seen as a definitive indicator of clinical incompetence," the affidavit asserts.
Addressing concerns about patient safety, the affidavit highlights that during postgraduate training, candidates are closely supervised by senior faculty and specialists. Their final competence is rigorously assessed through MD/MS examinations at the end of their training.
"All candidates admitted to postgraduate courses are licensed MBBS practitioners, and as such, they are already entitled to practice independently. The postgraduate education program is a structured and supervised journey, ensuring that only competent doctors progress," the affidavit explains.
The decision to reduce the cutoff was made by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission, anticipating a large number of vacant seats. This move will make an additional 1,00,054 candidates eligible for the third round, increasing the total eligible candidates to 2,28,170.
The affidavit was filed in response to a writ petition challenging the reduction of the minimum qualifying percentile for the third round of NEET-PG 2025-2026.
Dr. Praveen Kumar Dass, Assistant Director General (Medical Education), explained that for the academic session 2025-26, around 70,000 postgraduate seats were available, and 2,24,029 candidates appeared for the exam. Out of the 31,742 seats under the All-India Quota, 9,621 remained vacant after Round 2, with 5,213 of these in government medical colleges, including AIQ and DNB seats.
The affidavit emphasizes that to be eligible for NEET-PG, candidates must hold a recognized MBBS degree and have completed a compulsory rotating internship. MBBS candidates must secure at least 50% marks separately in theory and practical exams to qualify for their degree.
"All candidates appearing for NEET-PG are academically strong individuals who have completed extensive medical training across various specialties, followed by a compulsory internship. They are legally entitled to practice modern medicine," the affidavit highlights.
The affidavit further explains that due to negative marking, some NEET PG candidates may receive low, zero, or even negative scores. However, these scores reflect relative performance and exam design and shouldn't be seen as a definitive measure of clinical competence.
The Union has stated that reducing the qualifying percentile isn't unprecedented, as it has been done in the past to prevent seat wastage. In the academic year 2023, the qualifying percentile was reduced to zero across categories.
The Union also argues that policy matters are generally outside the scope of judicial review unless they are shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of statutory or constitutional provisions.
The affidavit emphasizes that postgraduate seats represent a significant national investment in infrastructure, faculty, and hospital facilities. Leaving these seats vacant would result in a waste of public resources and training capacity, impacting patient care and healthcare delivery.
"The reduction of the qualifying percentile is a necessary administrative measure to prevent seat wastage and strengthen specialist healthcare capacity. This move ensures that more eligible candidates have the opportunity to pursue postgraduate studies, ultimately benefiting patient care and the healthcare system as a whole," the affidavit concludes.
And this is the part most people miss: while the reduction in cutoff may spark controversy, it's a strategic move to optimize the utilization of resources and enhance access to healthcare. What are your thoughts on this decision? Do you think it's a step towards progress or a potential risk? Feel free to share your opinions in the comments!
