New Delhi: India’s National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) has on January 13 lowered the qualifying cut-off marks for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025 in a bid to fill up the post-graduate medical vacancies. The decision, taken at the request of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), has sparked a fierce debate with the Federation of Resident Doctors (FORDA), which represents junior doctors, terming it “arbitrary” and warning that it undermines the credibility of the medical profession.
To ensure “optimal utilization” of seats, the General/Economically Weaker Section (EWS) cutoff has been reduced from 276 marks (50th percentile) to 103 marks (7th percentile), while the SC/ST/OBC cutoff has been reduced from 235 marks (40th percentile) to nil 80th percentile as candidates are eligible for minus 4th counselling. Mint explains the controversy as nearly 18,000 postgraduate medical seats in government and private colleges remain vacant even after the second round of counseling in 2025.
What are the new revised scores for NEET-PG 2025 compared to the original cut offs?
The General/EWS cutoff was lowered from 276 points (50th percentile) to 103 points (7th percentile). More drastically, the qualifying cut-off for SC/ST/OBC candidates was reduced from 235 marks (40th percentile) to 0 percentile, making candidates scoring as low as minus 40 out of 800 eligible for counseling for postgraduate medical programs. Of course, counseling eligibility does not guarantee admission, which depends on seat availability, preferences and allotment process.
Why this drastic reduction was introduced after the 2nd round of counselling?
The revision was launched as over 18,000 PG seats in government and private medical colleges remained vacant after the second round of counseling in December. The government wants to ensure “optimal use” of these places to expand India’s pool of trained specialists and prevent the loss of valuable educational resources.
Why is the IMA supporting this decision as a “victory” for doctors?
The IMA, the national body for allopathic doctors, said the vacancies were causing “undue stress” and excessive workload for existing resident doctors. They argue that since all candidates are already MBBS-qualified doctors, the widening of eligibility does not result in “dilution of academic standards” but simply allows more doctors to enter specialist training. Dr. Dilip Bhanushali, President, IMA, said the move to lower eligibility criteria is welcome, which will ensure that no vacancy is left, thereby increasing the workforce in the medical sector.
Why is FORDA strongly opposed to the revision?
FORDA says the move is “unprecedented” and undermines the sanctity of merit-based selection. Specifically, they argue that this “slash” favors private medical schools by allowing them to fill positions with lower-scoring candidates for exorbitant fees, prioritizing institutional profits over student benefit. Critics like Dr. Neeraj Bedi, a former doctor at a private medical college in Bhopal, said that allowing candidates with negative marks to qualify for specialized medical courses undermines the vision of a healthy nation. Dr. Bedi further said, “Imagine a surgeon who scored even a zero in the exam now becoming a specialist with a score of minus 40. Vacancies do not justify compromising medical education. To become a ‘Viksit Bharat’, we need a healthy nation first, and a healthy nation is built on the foundation of high-quality doctors and rigorous medical training,” he said.
Why do these two organizations have such different views on the same issue?
The two organizations prioritize different aspects of the health care system. IMA focuses on system capacity and views vacancies as a failure of public health infrastructure that strains current resources. By contrast, FORDA focuses on professional integrity, fearing that lowering qualification limits devalues the careful training of doctors and erodes public trust by allowing “subpar candidates” to manage critical patient care.
Does the revised cutoff allow candidates with lower scores to bypass merit?
No. According to the government, admission remains strictly merit-based and is determined by the original NEET-PG rank and candidates’ preferences. Allocations are made only through authorized advisory mechanisms, ensuring that a doctor with a higher rank always takes precedence over a doctor with a lower rank.
