Published Feb 09, 2026 | 10:28 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 09, 2026 | 10:42 PM
FAIMA and the United Doctors Front have both filed legal challenges, with UDF Chairperson Dr Lakshya Mittal taking the matter to the Supreme Court.
Synopsis: The reduction has affected all categories. General and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates saw their threshold dropping from the 50th percentile to the 7th percentile. General category persons with benchmark disabilities experienced a fall from the 45th percentile to the 5th percentile.
A candidate with minus 12 (-12) marks out of 800 in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) has been allotted a seat to pursue an MD in Physiology.
The admission, confirmed in the third round of counselling, exemplified the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare’s controversial policy shift that reduced the qualifying criteria to levels many in the medical community described as a “surrender of standards.”
According to counselling data accessed by South First, the candidate ranked 2,30,087 secured admission to A.C.S. Medical College, Chennai, for MD Physiology through a self-financed merit seat under the Open Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.
Two other candidates with negative scores, too, have also secured postgraduate medical seats: one with minus eight marks secured a seat for pursuing an MD in Biochemistry at the Government Medical College, Haldwani—a government institution—under the All India quota’s Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, whilst another with minus five marks obtained an MD seat in Biochemistry at Symbiosis Medical College for Women, Pune.
More alarmingly, a candidate with just four marks out of 800 has been allotted MS Orthopaedics—one of the most sought-after surgical specialities—at PGIMS Rohtak, a prestigious government institute, through the All India quota under the OBC Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category.
The admissions followed a 13 January 2026 notice by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) that slashed minimum qualifying percentiles for the third round of counselling to unprecedented lows.
For SC/ST/OBC candidates, including persons with benchmark disabilities, the cut-off plummeted from the 40th percentile (235 marks) to the zeroth percentile (minus 40 marks).
The reduction has affected all categories. General and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates saw their threshold dropping from the 50th percentile (276 marks) to the 7th percentile (103 marks). General category persons with benchmark disabilities experienced a fall from the 45th percentile (255 marks) to the 5th percentile (90 marks).
The directive, contained in a Ministry of Health & Family Welfare letter dated 9 January 2026, appeared aimed at filling remaining vacancies during the third round of counselling.
An analysis of the bottom 20 ranks allotted in this week’s counselling revealed troubling patterns.
Twenty candidates, ranging from rank 2,28,330 (41 marks) to rank 2,30,087 (-12 marks), have been allotted seats across government and private institutions.
The vast majority secured places in basic science subjects: Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, and Microbiology—traditionally considered less competitive specialities but foundational to medical education. Only two clinical specialities appear in the list: General Medicine and Orthopaedics, both through Non-resident Indian (NRI) quota or PwD category.
What has alarmed the medical community is that the extremely low scores were securing admissions not just in private colleges but in government medical institutions.
However, this was not a first. In 2023, NEET-PG and super-speciality percentiles were similarly lowered to zero, though the lowest mark then was five. The recurrence suggested that this may be becoming an established pattern rather than an aberration.
“It is just the All India quota, state quota. We will see more people getting admission with lower marks. In state quota counselling, there is a separate management quota conducted by the states. There, candidates with 4, 5, or 6 marks can directly buy seats because they are technically ‘qualified’. We are not analysing private or management seats here. We are only talking about government seats through central counselling,” Dr D Srinath Dubyala, National President of the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA), told South First.
Medical bodies have responded with alarm. FAIMA and the United Doctors Front have both filed legal challenges, with Dr Lakshya Mittal, Chairperson of UDF, taking the matter to the Supreme Court, specifically challenging admissions granted at scores as low as minus 40.
“Transparency is important, but what we discovered through deeper analysis was deeply concerning,” Dr Mittal told South First. “Under the All India quota, we saw even negative scores getting admissions. This is only the beginning. The real problem lies in the state quota.”
Dr Mittal said state counselling processes would begin only after the completion of the All India third round, followed by stray vacancy rounds that would effectively allow seats to be “sold in bulk”.
The concern, he argued, was not limited to individual competence but extended to institutional credibility and public trust.
“When MD Biochemistry or Orthopaedics are being allotted to candidates with four marks, or even minus eight marks, it raises serious questions,” he said. “At that point, a candidate who does not even attempt the exam would score better.”
The criticism was particularly sharp when it came to foundational medical disciplines.
“Biochemistry, Physiology, and Anatomy are not minor or dispensable branches. They form the foundation of medical education,” Dr Mittal said. “A person with an MD in Biochemistry will become a professor tomorrow, responsible for teaching first-year MBBS students. That individual will shape the academic foundation of future doctors. We need to seriously ask what kind of base we are creating.”
Beyond teaching, these disciplines play a central role in diagnostics and investigations. “Today, we are already witnessing widespread irregularities in laboratory investigations and patient workups,” Dr Mittal added. “If standards are compromised at the training stage itself, the long-term impact on healthcare quality will be devastating.”
FAIMA leaders stressed that their objections were not rooted in social background or reservation. Dr D Srinath Dubyala of FAIMA emphasised that the debate was about minimum academic thresholds.
“This is not about judging candidates based on their background. Many of these candidates belong to OBC, SC, and ST communities, and we are not questioning reservation,” he said. “We are questioning the absence of a minimum academic standard. Asking for another exam attempt is not discrimination; it is about patient safety and medical standards.”
Dr Dubyala pointed to both domestic and international precedents. “AIIMS and other INI institutions have not reduced their cut-offs, even when seats remain vacant, because they prioritise standards. Internationally, too, examinations like the USMLE do not allow even a one-mark relaxation. Either you qualify, or you do not.”
FAIMA proposed a structural rather than exclusionary solution. “Instead of repeatedly reducing the cut-off and diluting merit, NBEMS should conduct NEET-PG twice a year,” Dr Dubyala said.
“Vacant seats from the first round can be filled in the second attempt. With lakhs of candidates appearing every year, aspirants deserve another chance to prepare and score better, rather than being pushed in with extremely low marks,” it said.
In a formal statement, FAIMA warned: “Merit is the cornerstone of medical education and the backbone of a robust healthcare system. Lowering the qualifying standards for postgraduate entrance exams not only compromises the integrity of the selection process but also threatens the very foundation of clinical excellence and patient safety.”
Also Read: Impact of ‘zero’ percentile for NEET-PG
A contrasting view came from Hyderabad-based neurologist Dr Sudhir Kumar. He challenged the assumption that entrance exam marks reliably predicted clinical competence.
“In most debates, we start with the assumption that higher marks automatically mean better knowledge and better competence,” Dr Kumar said. “That assumption is only partly true and not absolute.”
Drawing on personal experience, he noted that many highly respected doctors lacked smooth academic trajectories. “One of the most respected neurologists at CMC Vellore, a doctor for whom patients travelled from across the country, failed his DM Neurology exam twice and cleared it only on the third attempt. He himself shared this with me.”
Such cases, he argued, were not exceptions. “If you examine the academic records of many successful doctors, you will find that very few cleared all exams in their first attempt. Exam marks do not perfectly correlate with clinical competence. At best, they are a partial indicator.”
Dr Kumar highlighted the limitations of entrance exams. “They primarily test theoretical knowledge and memory, not judgment, temperament, or hands-on skill. NEET-PG compresses four-and-a-half years of learning into a single sitting. A candidate may be weak in several subjects but strong in one.”
If such a candidate enters MD Physiology, he said, it may reflect genuine subject aptitude. “Over the next three years, they will study physiology in depth. They will not treat patients; they will become teachers.”
For Dr Kumar, the real safeguard was in exit examinations. “For every MD, MS, DM, or DNB course, the pass mark is 50 percent, with no relaxation for any category, including SC, ST, or OBC. The reservation applies only at the entry stage, not at the exit stage. Four independent examiners assess the candidate. If they are not competent, they fail.”
He added that all such candidates were already MBBS-qualified and licensed. “An MBBS doctor can legally treat patients and perform procedures. If they do not enter PG, they can still practise independently.”
Ultimately, Dr Kumar argued that patient safety depended less on entrance cut-offs and more on training quality and post-qualification assessment.
“If we genuinely want to protect patients, the solution is not obsessing over entrance marks. It is rigorous training, strict exit exams, and periodic re-licensing, as followed in many developed countries,” he opined.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
