New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to reconsider its decision not to reduce the qualifying cut-off percentile for NEET-SS 2025, after around 1,800 super-speciality medical seats remained vacant despite two rounds of counselling.
The matter came before a bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, in connection with a petition concerning vacant in-service NEET-SS seats in Tamil Nadu.
Centre Had Decided Against Cut-off Reduction
The Centre had informed the Supreme Court that it would not lower the qualifying percentile for NEET-SS 2025. The decision was reportedly taken after consultations involving the Ministry of Health, Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and National Medical Commission (NMC).
Instead of reducing the qualifying criteria, the Centre proposed conducting a special stray vacancy round through the MCC to fill the remaining seats.
The government’s position followed criticism surrounding the previous year's decision to bring the NEET-SS qualifying percentile down to zero.
Around 1,800 Seats Remain Vacant
The large number of vacant seats has raised concerns about the utilisation of available super-speciality medical education capacity. Petitioners have argued that the number of vacant seats could rise further if the qualifying cut-off is not relaxed.
The case initially involved 151 vacant in-service NEET-SS seats in Tamil Nadu, with the Supreme Court previously directing that unfilled seats be returned to the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) for counselling.
Supreme Court Seeks Reconsideration
Considering the continuing vacancies, the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to take another look at its decision on the qualifying cut-off. The Court's intervention comes amid concerns that eligible candidates may remain available while a significant number of super-speciality seats go unfilled.
The Centre is expected to respond to the Court's direction when the matter is taken up again on September 17, 2026.
The outcome could determine whether the existing NEET-SS 2025 qualifying criteria remain unchanged or whether a relaxation is considered to facilitate the filling of vacant super-speciality seats.
