The sharp reduction in NEET-PG 2025 qualifying cut-offs by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has triggered widespread debate within the medical community. While public discussion has largely focused on the symbolism of negative scores entering counselling, policymakers and experts argue that the decision reflects deeper structural challenges in postgraduate medical education rather than a sudden dilution of standards.
The revision was announced after more than 18,000 postgraduate medical seats remained vacant nationwide even after two rounds of counselling, across both government and private medical colleges. Officials say such large-scale seat wastage undermines healthcare planning, weakens training capacity, and wastes costly educational infrastructure at a time when India continues to face shortages of specialists.
What Actually Changed
Earlier, NEET-PG 2025 had relatively high qualifying thresholds:
- General and EWS: 50 percentile
- PwBD (General): 45 percentile
- SC, ST and OBC: 40 percentile
Under the revised criteria issued by NBEMS:
- General and EWS candidates are now eligible at the 7 percentile
- PwBD (General) candidates at the 5 percentile
- SC, ST and OBC candidates at the -40 percentile
The relaxation applies only to eligibility for counselling, not to ranking or merit position. NEET-PG ranks remain unchanged, and seat allotment continues to be strictly based on rank order, preferences, and availability through centralised counselling.
Health Ministry sources stress that this distinction is critical. “NEET-PG is a ranking examination, not a test of minimum competence. Every candidate appearing in the exam is already an MBBS graduate who has completed internship and is legally qualified to practise medicine,” an official said.
Why the Focus on ‘Minus 40’ Can Be Misleading
Much of the criticism has centred on the fact that candidates with very low or negative scores are now technically eligible for counselling. However, officials and some education experts caution that eligibility does not equal admission.
Candidates with lower scores remain at the bottom of the merit list and are likely to be considered only for seats that remain vacant after higher-ranked candidates have exercised their choices often in less preferred colleges, locations, or specialities.
“The cut-off revision does not push low-scoring candidates ahead of meritorious ones. It only prevents seats from lying vacant when no higher-ranked candidate is willing to take them,” a senior official involved in counselling explained.
Why So Many PG Seats Are Going Unfilled
Medical educators point out that the vacancy problem is not new and has worsened over the years due to multiple systemic issues:
- High tuition fees in private medical colleges
- Long and stringent service bonds, especially in state quota seats
- Difficult working conditions, long hours, and safety concerns during residency
- High-pressure clinical branches with growing medico-legal risks
- Geographical and institutional disparities in training quality
As a result, even though competition for NEET-PG remains intense, many candidates prefer to drop a year, repeat the exam, or avoid certain branches rather than accept seats they perceive as financially or professionally unviable.
Diverging Views Within the Medical Community
Doctors’ associations remain divided. Groups like the Indian Medical Association (IMA) supported a cut-off revision, arguing that excessively high eligibility thresholds were worsening resident shortages, overburdening existing trainees, and affecting patient care particularly in government hospitals.
Others, including sections of the Federation of All India Medical Associations (FAIMA), fear that repeated cut-off reductions signal a shift from merit-driven selection toward seat-filling, particularly benefiting under-subscribed private colleges. They warn that postgraduate trainees go on to become specialists, surgeons, and faculty, making the quality of entry a long-term patient safety issue.
Government’s Position: Capacity Versus Credibility
The government maintains that the policy reflects a capacity-utilisation decision rather than a dilution of standards. Officials emphasise that postgraduate training itself is supervised, structured, and subject to continuous assessment over three years.
From the ministry’s perspective, leaving thousands of PG seats vacant while hospitals struggle with specialist shortages is a bigger systemic risk than expanding counselling eligibility among already-qualified doctors.
A Structural Problem, Not a One-Score Debate
Experts agree that the controversy highlights a deeper imbalance in India’s medical education system where entrance exam performance, institutional quality, financial barriers, and working conditions are increasingly misaligned.
While the optics of extremely low eligibility scores have drawn attention, many believe the real question is whether policy reforms will address why candidates are unwilling to join certain PG seats in the first place, rather than repeatedly lowering cut-offs as a short-term solution.
As NEET-PG 2025 counselling moves into its next phase, the episode underscores a growing tension between maintaining academic credibility and ensuring healthcare capacity, a balance India’s medical education system continues to struggle to achieve.
