NEET PG 2025 cut-off lowered by 40 percentile, doctors warn of merit dilution and global credibility risks

The decision to reduce the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses cut-off by 40 percentile points for the 2025 admission cycle has triggered sharp criticism from doctors and medical educators, who argue that the move risks weakening academic standards and harming India’s standing in global medical education.

The cut-off reduction, announced by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, applies across categories. For the general category, the qualifying percentile has been brought down from 50 to 10. For candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, the cut-off has been reduced from 40 to zero. This mirrors the approach taken in recent years to address vacant postgraduate seats, particularly in non-clinical and peripheral specialities.

The move has drawn strong objections from sections of the medical fraternity. Doctors’ associations and senior faculty members have cautioned that such a steep reduction allows candidates with extremely low scores to enter postgraduate programmes, raising concerns about competence, patient safety and long-term quality of care. They argue that postgraduate medical training demands a strong academic foundation, and lowering entry thresholds to this extent compromises that requirement.

Critics have also flagged the reputational implications for Indian medical degrees. With Indian doctors increasingly seeking fellowships, employment and higher training abroad, stakeholders fear that perceptions of diluted entry standards could affect international recognition of Indian postgraduate qualifications. Some senior doctors have pointed out that global regulators and institutions closely track admission benchmarks, and repeated cut-off reductions could invite closer scrutiny.

Officials familiar with the decision have defended the move by citing persistent seat vacancies after multiple rounds of counselling in previous years. According to data from earlier admission cycles, thousands of postgraduate medical seats remained unfilled despite repeated extensions and additional counselling rounds. Authorities maintain that lowering the cut-off is a pragmatic step to ensure optimal use of available training capacity, especially in government medical colleges and less preferred disciplines.

Even so, opponents argue that the solution lies in structural reforms rather than lowering merit thresholds. Suggestions from within the medical community include revisiting seat distribution, improving working conditions in less sought-after specialities, rationalising service bonds and offering targeted incentives instead of relaxing eligibility criteria.

The controversy adds to a broader debate around the conduct and outcomes of NEET PG, which has faced criticism in recent years over exam delays, multiple rescheduling episodes and policy changes introduced close to counselling timelines. Doctors’ bodies have urged the authorities to engage with stakeholders before implementing sweeping changes that affect the future of postgraduate medical education.

As counselling for NEET PG 2025 approaches, pressure is mounting on regulators to balance the immediate need to fill seats with the longer-term imperative of safeguarding academic rigour and public trust in India’s medical training system.