The decision to reduce the qualifying percentile for postgraduate medical admissions has sparked a nationwide debate. Amid criticism from sections of the medical community, the government has clarified that a lower cutoff in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET PG) does not equate to compromised competence.
Here’s what’s behind the controversy — and the government’s response.
Every year, NEET PG determines eligibility for MD, MS, and PG Diploma seats across India. However, in recent admission cycles, a significant number of seats — particularly in non-clinical and pre-clinical branches — remained vacant even after multiple counselling rounds.
To prevent seat wastage and ensure optimal utilization of medical infrastructure, authorities approved a reduction in the qualifying percentile.
The decision was implemented by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences under the broader regulatory framework of the National Medical Commission.
Officials have argued:
Lower percentile ≠ Lower standards: All candidates still clear a national-level competitive examination.
Relative scoring system: NEET PG percentile is based on relative performance, not absolute marks.
Seat utilization: Thousands of postgraduate seats going vacant harms healthcare delivery.
Specialist shortage: India faces a shortage of specialists in several regions, especially in rural areas.
The government maintains that allowing more candidates to qualify does not mean lowering training rigor — postgraduate training and final exams remain stringent.
Some doctors and aspirants argue that:
Frequent percentile reductions may undermine merit.
It could demotivate high-performing candidates.
Repeated adjustments may signal systemic issues in exam structure or seat distribution.
Concerns have also been raised on social media regarding long-term quality implications in medical education.
A key clarification often overlooked:
Percentile reflects how a candidate performed relative to others.
If overall performance in a particular year is lower, percentile cutoffs may shift accordingly.
Thus, a reduced percentile does not automatically mean candidates scored poorly in absolute terms.
India has been working to expand its medical education capacity in recent years, increasing both undergraduate and postgraduate seats. However, uneven demand across specialties has created imbalances.
Vacant seats in certain branches can delay the entry of trained professionals into the healthcare system — affecting patient care delivery.
The government argues that flexibility in qualifying criteria is a pragmatic step, not a compromise.
The NEET PG cutoff reduction has triggered a strong debate between maintaining meritocracy and ensuring seat utilization. While critics worry about standards, authorities insist that competence is ensured through rigorous postgraduate training and licensing processes.
The larger issue may not be the cutoff itself — but how medical education and workforce planning evolve to meet India’s growing healthcare needs.
