In a move that has generated considerable debate within India’s medical community, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) announced on Tuesday that the qualifying percentile for candidates in reserved categories for the NEET-PG 2025 examination has been reduced to zero for the third round of counselling. This unprecedented decision effectively allows candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) who scored as low as minus 40 marks out of 800 in the national entrance test to participate in the ongoing counselling process for postgraduate medical courses.

The reduction in cut-off was formally notified by NBEMS on January 13, 2026, and is intended to fill remaining MD, MS, and diploma seats after the completion of the first two rounds of counselling. For candidates in the general category, the qualifying percentile was lowered from the 50th percentile to the 7th percentile, while for persons with disabilities, it was reduced from 45th percentile to the 5th percentile. The cut-off for reserved category candidates—SC, ST, and OBC—was set at zero, effectively removing any minimum mark requirement for participation.

This decision follows guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which oversees medical education policy in India. The ministry reportedly directed NBEMS to reduce cut-offs to accommodate vacant seats and ensure maximum utilisation of postgraduate medical seats that remain unfilled after the first two counselling rounds.

Context of NEET-PG 2025 and Counselling Rounds

The NEET-PG 2025 examination, the national entrance test for admission to postgraduate medical courses including MD, MS, and diploma programs, was conducted on August 3, 2025, with results declared on August 19, 2025. The examination evaluates candidates across a range of subjects relevant to undergraduate medical education and serves as the sole gateway for postgraduate medical admissions in India.

Following the results, the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) conducted the first round of counselling between October and November 2025, allocating candidates to various postgraduate seats based on rank, category, and choice of specialty. The second round followed in late November and early December to fill seats left vacant after the first round. After resignations and withdrawals from previously allotted seats, the MCC recently revised the seat matrix, adding 540 seats to accommodate unfilled vacancies. Additionally, 135 new PG medical seats were introduced, raising the total number of seats available for admission in 2025–26 to 32,215.

The third round of counselling, for which the cut-off has now been reduced, is expected to begin shortly, allowing candidates who were previously ineligible under standard qualifying criteria to participate. The reduction in cut-offs for general, disabled, and reserved category candidates has been described as an extraordinary measure to prevent wastage of available seats.

Reactions from the Medical Community

The NBEMS decision has been met with sharp criticism from sections of the medical fraternity, who argue that reducing the cut-off to zero undermines academic standards and could compromise the quality of postgraduate medical education in India. Critics contend that allowing candidates with extremely low scores, including negative marks, to compete for limited postgraduate seats risks diluting the rigor and competence expected of medical professionals.

Health activist and medical reform advocate Dr Dhruv Chauhan commented that the measure “will benefit private medical colleges more than the deserving doctors who spend years preparing rigorously for NEET-PG. Seats will again be sold for crores.” Dr Chauhan referred to similar controversies in 2023, when the health ministry reduced the qualifying percentile to zero across all categories to fill vacant seats, leading to widespread criticism from educators and students alike.

Several academic observers have raised concerns about the impact on meritocracy, pointing out that the policy may inadvertently reward underperformance while disadvantaging high-scoring candidates who are competing under more rigorous standards. Opponents argue that while filling vacant seats is important to maximise capacity, it must be balanced against maintaining the quality of medical training, which directly affects patient care and public health outcomes.

Government’s Justification

From the perspective of the government and NBEMS, the reduction in cut-offs is primarily administrative and pragmatic. The main goal is to ensure that all available postgraduate medical seats are utilised efficiently. In several states and private colleges, a significant number of seats remain vacant after two rounds of counselling due to stringent qualifying marks and high competition. The policy is intended to increase accessibility for reserved category candidates and persons with disabilities, reflecting a broader commitment to inclusivity in medical education.

NBEMS emphasised that the decision does not alter the examination’s evaluation process or historical results. It simply allows candidates who meet the eligibility for reserved categories, irrespective of their NEET-PG score, to participate in the allocation of remaining seats. The reduction in cut-offs is therefore limited to the counselling stage, rather than the assessment or ranking of candidates.

Implications for Students and Colleges

For reserved category candidates who had previously scored below the qualifying percentile, the decision presents a unique opportunity to pursue postgraduate medical education. Students who may have otherwise been excluded now have the chance to access high-demand courses such as MD in Internal Medicine, MS in Surgery, and other specialized programs.

Private and government medical colleges are likely to witness a surge in applications during the third round of counselling. This may result in more diverse student cohorts in terms of academic preparedness and background. Colleges will have to manage allocation carefully to ensure adherence to the RTE, NEET-PG, and reservation regulations, while also addressing potential concerns about competency standards.

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Controversies

While the cut-off reduction may solve short-term seat vacancy issues, it raises longer-term questions about policy consistency and academic standards in medical education. Experts warn that repeatedly lowering qualifying marks could weaken the perceived value of postgraduate medical degrees and erode public confidence in India’s medical education system.

The medical community has also called for alternative strategies to address seat vacancies without compromising quality. These may include increasing the number of postgraduate seats, introducing bridge courses or remedial programs for underperforming students, and strengthening mentorship and clinical training to ensure competency.

The government, on its part, will need to balance equity, inclusivity, and quality assurance, particularly in the context of increasing demand for healthcare professionals and the growing complexity of medical practice. As India continues to expand its healthcare infrastructure, maintaining rigorous standards in postgraduate medical education remains critical for ensuring that future doctors are well-prepared to meet the country’s healthcare needs.

Conclusion

The NBEMS decision to set the NEET-PG 2025 cut-off to zero for reserved categories in the third round of counselling has triggered a debate that cuts across issues of inclusivity, meritocracy, and academic standards. While it provides an opportunity for previously ineligible candidates to access postgraduate medical education, it also poses challenges for maintaining the quality and credibility of medical training.

With the third round of counselling imminent, all eyes will be on how medical colleges manage the allocation of seats and whether the policy will achieve its intended goal of filling vacancies without compromising educational standards. The controversy underscores the broader tension in India’s medical education system between ensuring access for historically disadvantaged groups and preserving high academic standards, a challenge that policymakers and educational authorities will continue to grapple with in the coming years.