NEET-PG Cutoff Standards: Expert Panel Warns Against Diluting Qualifying Marks

A government-appointed expert committee has cautioned against further lowering of NEET-PG qualifying cutoff scores, warning that minimum standards must remain intact even when seats remain vacant. The 12-member panel, which reported to the Supreme Court, specifically flagged the risk of admitting candidates with negative marks or grossly inadequate performance. This guidance comes after the National Board of Examinations (NBE) had reduced qualifying percentiles sharply for the 2025–26 round, prompting legal challenges. For NEET-PG aspirants, this signals that future cutoff reductions may face scrutiny and that the exam's competitive integrity is being actively defended.

What the Expert Committee Recommended on NEET-PG Cutoffs

A 12-member expert panel chaired by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) Dr. Loveneesh G. Krishna submitted a detailed report to a Supreme Court bench in November 2026. The committee was originally tasked in July 2026 with auditing the NEET admission system, identifying gaps, and recommending practical reforms. In its final report, the panel explicitly stated that the sanctity of NEET examinations must be preserved and that minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical education should not be diluted to the point where candidates with grossly inadequate or negative performance become eligible.

The committee's position is clear: while percentile reductions may sometimes be necessary depending on the number of vacant seats, such reductions must never compromise the fundamental competitive nature of the exam. The report emphasizes that cutoff scores should not be lowered simply for institutional convenience or to fill empty positions. This represents a formal pushback against the trend of aggressive cutoff reductions seen in recent NEET-PG cycles.

The Controversy That Prompted This Expert Review

The expert committee's caution was triggered by a significant event earlier in 2026. In January 2026, the National Board of Examinations (NBE) announced a sharp reduction in the minimum qualifying percentile for the third counselling round of NEET-PG 2025–26. For the General and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) categories, the qualifying percentile was lowered to the 7th percentile, corresponding to a cutoff score of 103 marks. For General candidates with disabilities (PwBD), it was set at the 5th percentile (90 marks). Most controversially, for SC/ST/OBC categories (including PwBD of these groups), the qualifying percentile was reduced to the 0th percentile, resulting in a cutoff score of negative 40 marks.

These reductions sparked multiple petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the government's decision. Petitioners argued that allowing candidates with negative marks to qualify for postgraduate medical admission undermined the credibility of the examination and the quality of medical education. The government responded by constituting the expert committee to examine the entire NEET admission and counselling system and provide evidence-based recommendations on how to balance seat-filling with educational standards.

Why Negative Cutoff Scores Matter for NEET-PG Aspirants

A negative cutoff score means that a candidate can qualify for admission even if they scored below zero on the exam—in other words, even if they answered more questions incorrectly than correctly. In NEET-PG, each correct answer typically earns marks, and each incorrect answer results in a penalty. A negative final score indicates that the penalty exceeded the marks earned. Allowing such candidates to enter postgraduate medical training raises serious concerns about clinical competence and patient safety.

For NEET-PG aspirants, this issue is not merely academic. If cutoffs continue to fall to accommodate vacant seats, the competitive value of a high NEET-PG score diminishes. An aspirant who scores 400 marks (a strong performance) may find themselves competing for the same seats as someone who scored negative marks. This erodes the meritocratic principle underlying the exam and can affect the quality of peer learning and institutional reputation. The expert committee's recommendation to maintain standards protects the integrity of the qualification and ensures that admission reflects genuine clinical knowledge.

How Vacant Seats Drive Cutoff Reductions

One of the core tensions in NEET-PG counselling is the mismatch between the number of available seats and the number of qualified candidates. When many seats remain unfilled after earlier counselling rounds, medical colleges and the counselling authorities face pressure to fill them. The simplest administrative solution is to lower the qualifying cutoff, which expands the pool of eligible candidates. However, this approach can lead to a race to the bottom, where cutoffs fall so low that they cease to reflect any meaningful standard of competence.

The expert committee's report acknowledges that percentile reductions do occur in practice, depending on vacancy levels. However, it draws a firm line: cutoff reductions should never be driven by institutional convenience alone. The committee suggests that other solutions—such as improving seat allocation, encouraging inter-state mobility, or addressing regional imbalances in seat distribution—should be explored before resorting to lowering qualifying standards. For NEET-PG aspirants, this means that future counselling rounds may see more thoughtful seat-filling strategies rather than blanket cutoff reductions.

The Role of the Supreme Court and Government Oversight

The Supreme Court's intervention in NEET-PG cutoff policy reflects growing judicial scrutiny of medical education standards. By constituting an expert committee and requesting a detailed report, the court signalled that cutoff decisions are not purely administrative matters but have implications for public health and educational quality. The expert committee's report, submitted to the court, now serves as a reference point for future policy decisions by the National Board of Examinations, the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), and the National Medical Commission (NMC).

This oversight is significant for NEET-PG aspirants because it means that future cutoff announcements are likely to be more carefully justified and less arbitrary. If NBE or MCC attempts to lower cutoffs dramatically in future cycles, they will face the burden of explaining how such reductions align with the expert committee's guidance. The court's involvement also suggests that if cutoffs are reduced excessively, legal challenges are likely, which could delay counselling or lead to policy reversals mid-cycle.

What the Expert Committee Said About Percentile vs. Rank-Based Selection

The expert committee's report also touched on a broader reform: the potential shift from a percentile-based system to a rank-based merit system for NEET-PG and NEET-SS (super-speciality). The National Medical Commission (NMC) has given in-principle approval to this shift. A rank-based system would rank candidates from highest to lowest score, rather than grouping them by percentile bands. This change could reduce the problem of cutoff manipulation because ranks are absolute and cannot be arbitrarily lowered without changing the rank of every candidate.

For NEET-PG aspirants, a shift to rank-based selection could mean greater transparency and predictability in counselling. Instead of wondering whether the 7th percentile cutoff will drop to the 5th percentile in the next round, aspirants would know their exact rank and could estimate their chances more reliably. However, such a system change would require coordination across multiple bodies (NBE, NMC, MCC, and state counselling authorities) and is unlikely to be implemented immediately.

Implications for Future NEET-PG Counselling Rounds

The expert committee's recommendations are likely to influence how NBE and MCC conduct counselling in 2026–27 and beyond. While the committee does not have direct authority to set cutoffs, its report carries significant weight because it was submitted to the Supreme Court and reflects the consensus of senior government health officials. Future cutoff announcements will likely include explicit justification for any reductions, citing the number of vacant seats and the measures taken to fill them through other means.

For NEET-PG aspirants preparing for upcoming cycles, this means that cutoff reductions, if they occur, are likely to be more modest and defensible than the sharp drops seen in 2025–26. Aspirants should not assume that cutoffs will fall dramatically to accommodate their scores; instead, they should aim for the highest possible score and be prepared for competitive counselling. The expert committee's stance also suggests that state-level counselling authorities and private medical colleges will face similar pressure to maintain qualifying standards, reducing the likelihood of a 'backdoor' route to admission through lower cutoffs at less popular institutions.

The Broader Context: Medical Education Quality and Patient Safety

Underlying the expert committee's recommendation is a fundamental principle: postgraduate medical education is not merely about filling seats but about ensuring that doctors entering specialized training have adequate foundational knowledge. A candidate with a negative NEET-PG score has demonstrated, by definition, that they answered more questions incorrectly than correctly. Admitting such a candidate to a postgraduate program raises questions about their ability to handle advanced clinical scenarios, supervise junior doctors, or conduct research.

The committee's emphasis on maintaining qualifying standards reflects international best practices in medical education. Most countries with rigorous postgraduate medical training systems maintain clear, defensible cutoff scores that reflect genuine competence. By resisting the pressure to lower standards, India's expert committee is signalling a commitment to the quality of its postgraduate medical workforce. For NEET-PG aspirants, this is ultimately reassuring: it means that the qualification they earn through a competitive exam will retain its value and credibility in the job market and in clinical practice.

Frequently asked questions

The expert committee's firm stance on maintaining NEET-PG qualifying standards marks a turning point in how cutoff policy is approached. NEET-PG aspirants should prepare for competitive counselling based on merit rather than expecting dramatic cutoff reductions, and should monitor future NBE announcements for how the committee's recommendations are implemented in practice.