INTRODUCTION:
Entrance examinations in India are not just academic evaluations; they act as entry points to public institutions and professional workspaces that play an important role in overall societal development. As a result, decisions related to such entrances and their selection criteria often exceed procedural convenience and attract constitutional scrutiny. The recent decision by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) of lowering the cut-off for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate medical courses (NEET PG) has led to wide-ranging controversy and raised concerns beyond education.[1].
The administrative authorities have defended the decision by stating that it is required to fill the vacancy of postgraduate seats. Though the objective of the decision is to avoid large-scale vacancy, it has caused problems for candidates from the general category and has raised constitutional concerns in relation to the application of Article 14.
This blog inspects the recent NEET PG cut-off revision from the perspective of constitutional and administrative law, examining the extent of judicial review in such matters, the authority of administrative officials in taking such decisions and the significant repercussions of such decisions in society.
BACKGROUND: CUT-OFF MARKS AS INSTRUMENTS OF EXAMINATION POLICY:
Cut-off scores have always been used as an administrative tool by the authorities to balance admissions in professional programs through competitive exams. They fulfil two purposes: first, they guarantee that candidates demonstrate basic level of capability standards, and second, they oversee the distribution of the few available seats in a way that is consistent with institutional capacity and the general welfare. Cut-offs are used as a policy tool by examining and regulatory authorities to balance efficiency, merit, and access considerations.
Cut-off marks fixation is subject to constitutional oversight even though it is essentially a matter of policy. Modifications in eligibility requirements can have serious legal ramifications, especially if they are made at the last minute or in a broad way. The justification provided for changing cut-offs, such as avoiding seat waste or addressing systematic shortages, must logically relate to the chosen approach. In cases where such decisions look arbitrary and unreasonable, questions are raised regarding the boundaries of administrative discretion in such policy decisions. That is why such decisions must adhere to constitutional principles of fairness and reasonableness.
ARTICLE 14 AND THE DOCTRINE OF ARBITRARINESS:
Article 14 of the Constitution[2] forbids arbitrary state action and guarantees equality before the law as interpreted by the Courts in different cases. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that any decision made by the State must be based on fairness, reason, and rationality because arbitrariness is incompatible with equality.[3]. This doctrine is applicable not only to legislation but also to executive and administrative decisions, such as those concerning education and the academic area. Therefore, examination-related decisions must meet the requirements of non-arbitrariness and fairness even though they are policy-driven.
Viewed through the constitutional lens, the NEET PG cut-off revision questions the administrative discretion used by the authorities. Although filing vacant seats might be a valid goal, Article 14 requires that the means that are used should have a rational means to the stated goal.[4]. Without well-defined guidelines or protections, an abrupt and significant reduction in eligibility requirements runs the risk of being viewed as excessive and irrational. Therefore, the question is not whether discretion exists but rather whether it has been used in a way that is consistent with equality and fairness principles of the Constitution.
JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO ACADEMIC AND EXPERT BODIES:
Indian courts have consistently refrained from interfering in cases related to the recognition of academic and examination-related decisions belonging in the specialised domain of expert and regulatory bodies. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth[5] emphasised that, as the courts are not well equipped to evaluate the professional and technical aspects that underlie examination standards and policies, judicial review in such matters should be limited. The Court noted that academic judgment involves evaluation techniques, eligibility requirements, and cut-off scores, and interference is required only in those cases where the decision is demonstrated to be irrational, arbitrary, or violates the principles of constitution.
However, the discretion and autonomy granted to academic authorities are not exempt from constitutional review. In the case of University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao[6]The Supreme Court clarified that even though the courts should refrain from replacing an expert’s opinion with their own, they can still intervene if the academic decisions are arbitrary, illegitimate, or dishonest. The ruling reaffirms that acts that violate fundamental rights or constitutional principles are not subject to deference. In the context of the NEET PG cut-off revision, the balance between expert discretion and judicial oversight becomes more important because the decision must not only serve administrative goals but also adhere to equality, fairness, and reasonableness principles of the Constitution.
FILING VACANT SEATS VS. DILUTION OF MERITS:
The basis for changing the NEET PG cut-off mainly focuses on filling a large number of vacant postgraduate medical seats. While making the best use of educational infrastructure is an important objective, the manner in which this goal is approached raises serious concerns. A substantially lower cut-off, especially one that includes negative marks, could divert the focus from merit-based selection to simply filling seats. In a competitive national exam like NEET PG, which directly affects the quality of specialised medical education, lowering standards could damage the credibility of the selection process and weaken public trust in regulatory decisions.
Additionally, the issue of filling vacant seats cannot be examined separately from the larger impacts on professional competence and public interest. Medical education holds a special position because it directly impacts healthcare delivery and patient safety. Lowering the cut-off excessively raises questions about whether alternative measures were considered, such as adjusting seat distribution or changing admission timelines. From a constitutional viewpoint, the concern is not just about administrative efficiency but whether the decision strikes a fair balance between institutional needs and maintaining minimum academic standards. This balance is crucial for fairness and reasonableness in public law.
CONCLUSION:
The modification in NEET PG’s cut-off score focuses on the complex relationship between filling seats and quality. If it is legitimate to expect that every available seat must be filled, it is also natural to be concerned about this sort of alteration in cut-off scores to such an extended degree. On a broader level, one can see that such choices have ramifications, especially with respect to public perception about entrance tests and how much merit counts. The decision does not appear to be a measured policy but one that seemed to be taken in response to a sense of crisis, with potentially damaging effects on one’s capacity to trust entrance exams in general.
Author(s) Name: Swarnim (Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies)
References:
[1] Anonna Dutt, ‘Cut-off reduced for PG medical seats as 18,000 remain vacant after 2nd counselling’ The Indian Express (India, 14 January 2026) https://indianexpress.com/article/india/cut-off-reduced-pg-medical-seats-18000-vacant-2nd-counselling-10473959/ accessed 24 January 2026
[2] The Constitution of India, art 14
[3] EP Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3 (SC)
[4] RK Dalmia v Justice SR Tendulkar AIR 1958 SC 538 (SC)
[5] Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 (SC)
[6] University of Mysore v CD Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 (SC)
