NEET PG Cut-Off Reduction: Supreme Court Rejects Further Lowering of Percentile

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a crucial issue concerning the reduction of the NEET PG cut-off percentile for admission into post-graduate medical courses. The case, Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., centered around the petitioners’ plea to lower the cut-off further to ensure the filling of vacant seats in the 2021-22 academic year. The Court dismissed the plea, affirming that medical admission standards should not be diluted beyond a reasonable limit and that public interest must align with maintaining educational rigor.

Background of the Case

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that despite the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) reducing the qualifying marks by 15 percentile, several PG medical seats remained vacant. They sought a further reduction of 5 percentile, citing precedents where the cut-off had been lowered by 20 percentile in previous years.

The primary issues in this case included:

Whether a further reduction in the percentile was required to fill vacant medical seats.
Whether an additional round of counseling should be conducted for unallocated seats.
Whether lowering the qualifying marks further would undermine medical education standards.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued:

Even after the 15-percentile reduction, nearly 1,500 post-graduate medical seats remained unfilled in the state quota.
In the previous year, the cut-off had been lowered by 20 percentile, and hence, an additional 5-percentile reduction should be considered.
Allowing unfilled seats to remain vacant was against public interest, given the growing need for medical professionals in the country.
The reduction in qualifying marks would not compromise the quality of medical education but instead help more deserving candidates secure seats.

Arguments of the Respondents

The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, countered:

The government had already reduced the cut-off percentile by 15 points after careful consideration and in consultation with the National Medical Commission (NMC).
Most of the remaining vacant seats were in pre-paraclinical subjects, which historically have fewer takers.
Another round of counseling was not feasible, as the academic session was already delayed by four months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reducing the percentile further would lower the merit threshold, potentially affecting the quality of medical professionals in India.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After considering both sides, the Supreme Court ruled against further reducing the cut-off percentile, stating:

“The need for filling up vacant seats, which undoubtedly is a matter of public interest, has to be balanced with other considerations such as ensuring that the batch of admitted students commences the course, the standards of medical education are not diluted, and uncertainty is not created by ad-hoc reductions in the norms of eligibility.”
The Court noted that the precedent set in Harshit Agarwal v. Union of India, where the Court directed a reduction in NEET UG percentile, was not applicable to this case, as the circumstances differed significantly.
The NMC had been consulted before lowering the percentile by 15 points, and it had not recommended any further reduction.
Allowing the reduction beyond a reasonable threshold would set a precedent that could weaken the credibility of the medical education system.

Judgment and Rationale

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing:

Medical admissions must maintain a standard to ensure that students are adequately prepared for rigorous training and responsibilities in healthcare.
Continuous reductions in percentile qualifications would lead to unpredictability in the admission process and disrupt academic schedules.
The Court’s intervention in academic matters must be limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness, which was not evident in this case.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial interference in academic policy decisions must be minimal and based on strong evidence of arbitrariness.
The ruling established that medical education standards should not be compromised for the sake of filling vacant seats.
The government was commended for having already exercised its discretionary power by lowering the percentile by 15 points.
The decision upholds the need for a balanced approach that considers both public interest and the quality of healthcare professionals.

Implications for Future Admissions

The ruling has significant implications for medical admissions in India. It sends a clear message that while ensuring maximum seat utilization is important, the process must not come at the cost of lowering educational standards. The key implications include:

Limiting percentile reductions: The judgment sets a limit on how much the NEET PG cut-off can be lowered, preventing excessive relaxation of eligibility criteria.
Strengthening medical education standards: The ruling reinforces that medical professionals must meet a certain merit threshold to maintain the quality of healthcare.
Precedent for judicial intervention: The Supreme Court’s reluctance to intervene in admission policies reaffirms that academic decisions should primarily be left to expert bodies like the NMC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. highlights the importance of maintaining academic rigor in medical education while ensuring efficient admission processes. By dismissing the plea for further reduction in the NEET PG cut-off percentile, the Court reinforced the principle that public interest must align with maintaining educational standards. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar challenges in medical admissions in the future and underscores the need for a structured and merit-based approach to medical education.

Petitioner Name: Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors..
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 02-05-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: neppali-sai-vikash-&-vs-union-of-india-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-05-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category