NBEMS informs the Supreme Court that 95,913 more candidates are now eligible for NEET PG 2025 counseling after the cut-off reduction. Get the latest updates on zero-percentile news.
In a critical legal submission on February 17, 2026, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court detailing the massive expansion of the NEET PG 2025-26 counseling pool. Following a directive from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the qualifying cut-off was drastically reduced, rendering 95,913 more doctors eligible to participate in the ongoing admission process. The NBEMS clarified that it acted solely as an implementing body following government orders dated January 9, 2026. This move has sparked intense debate regarding the balance between addressing the 18,000 vacant medical seats and maintaining the rigorous academic standards expected of postgraduate specialists.
The controversy surrounding NEET PG 2025-26 began on January 13, 2026, when the NBEMS issued a notice revising the minimum qualifying criteria. Traditionally, the general category requires the 50th percentile, while reserved categories require the 40th. However, facing a chronic shortage of takers for non-clinical branches and some clinical seats, the government approved a reduction to the 7th percentile for General/EWS and an unprecedented 0th percentile for SC/ST/OBC categories.
Historically, the government had opposed such dilutions, arguing in 2022 that minimum standards are essential for patient safety. Why the shift now? The rapid expansion of PG seats across India has led to a supply-demand mismatch where infrastructure exists, but qualified candidates at the 50th percentile mark are insufficient to fill every vacancy. This “zero-percentile” policy effectively allows candidates with even negative scores (as low as -40 out of 800) to apply, a move the petitioners in the Supreme Court have labeled as converting a screening mechanism into a “certification of failure.”
Government Authority (NBEMS Submission):
In its response to the Supreme Court, the NBEMS emphasized its role. “Pursuant to the lowering of the cut-off, 95,913 additional candidates have now become eligible. Any interference at this stage would directly affect these candidates who have already begun the choice-filling process,” the board stated, shifting the policy responsibility to the Ministry of Health and the National Medical Commission (NMC).
Expert Analysis:
Dr. Srinath Dubyala, President of the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA), expressed grave concern: “Allowing clinical and surgical branches to be filled at near-zero percentiles is a serious dilution of standards. These doctors will eventually handle high-risk emergency cases. Merit cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience.”
Petitioner’s Legal Voice:
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, representing the doctors challenging the move, argued that “postgraduate medical education requires stricter merit standards than undergraduate courses.” Diluting these standards to this extreme violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) by treating unequally prepared candidates as equals.”
Affected Party
A newly eligible candidate from Karnataka noted, “While I understand the concerns, many of us missed the original cut-off by a few marks. This gives us a chance to serve in non-clinical roles like anatomy or physiology, where seats always go to waste.”
GROUND REALITY & IMPACT
The impact of this policy change is already visible in Round 3 seat allotments. In Telangana and Haryana, reports have emerged of candidates with scores as low as 1 or 4 out of 800 securing seats in specialties like orthopedics and general surgery. At Osmania Medical College and other reputed institutions, seats in “pre-clinical” subjects like biochemistry are being filled by candidates with single-digit or even negative scores.
Public reaction has been polarized. While some educationists argue that “inter se merit” (the order of merit among those who apply) is maintained as long as higher-ranked students get first pick, doctors on the ground worry about the training burden. Senior residents warn that teaching a candidate who lacks fundamental medical knowledge, as evidenced by a near-zero score, puts immense strain on the hospital’s supervisory capacity and could eventually risk patient outcomes in critical care.
EXPERT ANALYSIS
Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court’s “conscience” must be satisfied that the move wasn’t arbitrary. Economically, vacant seats are a “white elephant” for medical colleges, costing millions in maintenance and faculty salaries without providing output. However, the long-term consequence of this dilution is a potential “competency gap.” If the system admits students based solely on their ability to pay or their category status rather than a minimum knowledge threshold, the credibility of Indian medical degrees internationally could be at stake. The Delhi High Court previously upheld the reduction, noting that “expanding the pool helps optimal utilization of seats,” but the apex court may look deeper into whether a “floor” or minimum mark (above zero) is constitutionally required to protect public health.
FORWARD-LOOKING
The Supreme Court is expected to hold a decisive hearing on this matter in March 2026. Until then, the counseling process for the Stray Vacancy Round is proceeding as scheduled. The RESET Registration option for the Stray Round has been activated and is available until 11:00 AM on February 18, 2026. Candidates who have become newly eligible must complete their document verification via the MCC portal immediately. While the court has issued notices to the Union Government and the NMC, it has refrained from staying the counseling so far to prevent further academic delays. Medical aspirants should keep a close watch on mcc.nic.in for the final allotment results.
The NEET PG cut-off reduction is a desperate measure to fix a systemic problem—the wastage of specialized medical training capacity. While it brings nearly 96,000 doctors back into the fold, it raises fundamental questions about what “qualified” means in the medical profession. As the Supreme Court weighs “wasted seats” against “wasted standards,” the decision will set a precedent for how India manages its elite medical education. For now, the focus remains on ensuring that every seat is occupied by a doctor willing to serve, regardless of the score that got them through the door.
