NEET PG Cut-Off Hits Historic Low: Doctors Slam Merit Collapse
- Sakshi Mishra
- Feb 4
- 4 min read
In a groundbreaking action that has been described as a "mockery of merit" as well as a "systemic breakdown," the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has officially set the qualifying cut-off for NEET-PG 2025-26 at zero percentile for students from reserved categories and just the 7th percentile for those in the general category. This ruling, which allows individuals with even negative scores (down to -40 out of 800) to qualify for crucial medical specialities, has sparked widespread outrage throughout the country. Detractors contend that the government is essentially "tainting" the healthcare sector and "ruining" the educational system to fulfil an underlying agenda aimed at commercialisation. The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) and the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) have ignited a significant debate by significantly lowering the NEET PG 2025 cut-off scores to astonishing levels. For the very first time, candidates pursuing postgraduate medical education are not required to answer any questions correctly to be considered eligible. New statistics for Round 3 counselling indicate that SC/ST/OBC candidates can qualify with a score of –40, General/EWS candidates need 103 marks, and PwD (General) candidates must achieve 90 marks out of a total of 800. A score of 40 implies that the individual answered more questions incorrectly than correctly; nonetheless, the authorities have classified them as “eligible” to assume roles such as surgeons, paediatricians, and various specialists in the country. This unprecedented action has generated considerable backlash among medical professionals, students, and educational authorities. The healthcare sector has expressed frustration and shock. Dr.
Rohan Krishnan, Chief Patron of the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA), remarked, “This is a significant network. It has become a practice to lower the percentile to zero merely to occupy seats in inferior private medical colleges lacking adequate infrastructure and patient availability. This allows individuals without a grasp of fundamental skills to perform surgeries. It poses a serious threat to the standard of healthcare in India.” Likewise, the Federation of Resident Doctors’ Association (FORDA) criticised the decision in a fierce letter addressed to the Health Minister, cautioning that this choice undermines the extensive training of countless aspiring physicians, jeopardises patient safety, and diminishes the legitimacy of the medical field. Students and candidates have voiced their concerns on social media using the hashtag #MurderOfMerit. One highly ranked student questioned, “Why should I dedicate 18 hours each day to achieve a 99.9th percentile if the government permits someone who failed the examination to earn the same qualification? They are transforming our educational framework into a commercial venture where seats can be purchased rather than earned by qualified individuals.” The official rationale provided by the government mentions “optimal utilisation of resources,” highlighting the existence of over 18,000 unfilled PG seats following Round 2. While officials regard this as a practical answer, specialists indicate underlying complications. Numerous private medical schools demand fees that range from ₹50 lakh to ₹3 crore for PG slots, and reducing the cut-off permits affluent students with no merit to fill these roles, thereby safeguarding the financial interests of private medical institutions. Furthermore, the decision to lower reserved category cut-offs to zero has faced criticism for concealing a decline in standards under the guise of promoting social equity. Although reservations at the MBBS level may be seen as justifiable, extending them to candidates demonstrating “zero competence” at the specialist level could lead to serious medical issues. Unfilled positions in disciplines such as Anatomy, Physiology, and other foundational areas remain vacant due to their lack of appeal to students, yet rather than enhancing incentives or resources, the government has drastically lowered standards so that almost “anyone holding a degree” can occupy these roles.
The implications of this policy are quite troubling. Indian physicians, who were once held in high regard globally, may undergo examination as international medical authorities, such as the USMLE or GMC, question the legitimacy of Indian postgraduate qualifications if the standards remain at a zero percentile. Disparities in healthcare are likely to increase: affluent patients will be able to access top-tier private healthcare facilities, whereas the underprivileged, depending on government services, could be treated by specialists who obtained their qualifications with failing scores. Additionally, top-performing graduates are showing a growing interest in opportunities overseas, feeling disheartened that their extensive efforts and excellence are no longer recognised within India.
By focusing on simply filling seats rather than verifying skills, the government has initiated a troubling era for medical education in India. Permitting individuals with negative scores to
pursue specialisations alters the educational framework from nurturing healers to creating “qualified risks.” The quality of postgraduate medical training, the safety of patients, and India’s standing in the world as a source of adept physicians are all jeopardised. Immediate corrective measures are necessary, which should include reinstating merit-based cut-offs, modifying incentives to draw students to underrepresented specialities, and implementing more stringent controls to avoid the commercialisation of medical training.
Comments