0
0
NEW DELHI — A fierce debate over the future of India’s healthcare quality has ignited following a drastic reduction in qualifying scores for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) courses. On February 11, 2026, the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) formally demanded an immediate reversal of the new percentile cuts, warning that the move risks transforming specialist medical education into a “pay-to-enter” system that prioritizes wealth over clinical competence.
The controversy follows a January 13 decision by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to slash qualifying barriers to unprecedented lows. The policy shift aimed to fill over 18,000 vacant seats remaining after two rounds of counseling, but it has instead unified several major medical bodies in a plea for maintained academic rigour.
The Numbers Behind the Shift
The NEET-PG is the gateway for MBBS graduates seeking to specialize as MD (Doctor of Medicine), MS (Master of Surgery), or Diploma holders. Historically, a 50th percentile was required for general category candidates to ensure a baseline of academic proficiency.
The recent revisions have fundamentally altered this landscape:
-
General/EWS Category: Dropped from the 50th percentile (approx. 276/800 marks) to the 7th percentile (103 marks).
-
Reserved Categories (SC/ST/OBC): Effectively dropped to a 0th percentile, with some candidates qualifying with scores as low as -40 marks.
-
General PwD: Adjusted to the 5th percentile.
The Health Ministry justified these cuts as a pragmatic solution to prevent the “wastage of national resources.” With a total pool of approximately 58,000 seats for the 2025-26 session—a 16.9% increase from the previous year—authorities argue that leaving thousands of slots empty, particularly in non-clinical branches like Physiology or Anatomy, hampers the long-term growth of the medical workforce.
FOGSI’s Stand: Quality Over Occupancy
FOGSI, which represents thousands of obstetricians and gynecologists across India, argues that the focus on “filling seats” misses the broader point of medical excellence.
“Postgraduate medical education is not merely about seat occupancy; it is about training competent specialists who will serve the nation for decades,” the federation stated. Their primary concern is that low entry barriers, when paired with the exorbitant fees charged by private and deemed universities—often ranging from tens of lakhs to several crores of rupees—create a barrier for meritorious students from modest backgrounds while opening doors for low-performing students with deep pockets.
The “Pay-to-Enter” Risk
Critics argue that the vacancy crisis isn’t a “lack of qualified candidates” but rather a “lack of affordable seats.” When fees are “irrational and unaffordable,” seats in private institutions remain empty. By lowering the percentile to zero, the government allows anyone who can afford the tuition to claim a specialist spot, regardless of their performance on the national entrance exam.
“Dilution of entry standards alongside unchecked commercialisation threatens academic excellence, professional dignity and public trust,” warned the Federation of Resident Doctors’ Association (FORDA) in a recent statement to Health Minister JP Nadda.
A Community Divided
While FOGSI and resident doctor groups like FAIMA (Federation of All India Medical Association) have condemned the move, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) has offered a more tempered, supportive view.
Dr. Indranil Deshmukh, representing the IMA, described the reduction as a “progressive step” to address the chronic shortage of specialists in rural India. Some educators also argue that a single multiple-choice exam may not perfectly reflect a doctor’s future clinical skills or bedside manner.
However, many young doctors disagree. Dr. Ivanshi Kaul, a NEET aspirant, expressed frustration that the move devalues the years of intense study required to master the medical curriculum. Instances of candidates securing seats in MS Orthopaedics with just 4 out of 800 marks have become flashpoints for this outrage.
Legal Challenges and Public Health
The dispute has now reached the highest level of the Indian judiciary. The Supreme Court recently issued notices to the Centre regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by doctors and advocates. The petition claims the cuts violate Article 14 (Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life), arguing that patient safety is compromised when specialists are trained without meeting basic competency benchmarks.
The Justices expressed a need for “conscience satisfaction,” questioning how the government could justify allowing candidates with negative scores to enter high-stakes medical fields.
Impact on Patient Care
For the general public, the implications are significant. In high-risk fields like obstetrics, a specialist’s ability to manage life-threatening complications—such as post-partum hemorrhage or eclampsia—is rooted in their foundational academic training.
If the “floor” for entry is removed, there are concerns that the quality of care in private hospitals—where many of these “paid” seats exist—could become inconsistent compared to government institutions where merit remains the primary filter.
The Path Forward
As the Supreme Court prepares for a full hearing in late February, medical advocates are calling for a middle-ground approach:
-
Fee Rationalization: Capping tuition in private colleges so that merit-based candidates can afford to fill vacant seats.
-
Stakeholder Consultation: Including bodies like FOGSI and NMC in policy shifts before they are enacted.
-
Competency-Based Testing: Implementing rigorous exit exams for all postgraduates to ensure that, regardless of entry scores, only competent specialists reach the patient’s bedside.
Advice for Stakeholders
-
For Aspiring Students: Closely monitor the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) website for Round 3 updates and remain focused on clinical skill acquisition, regardless of score fluctuations.
-
For Patients: When seeking specialist care, patients are encouraged to look for board-certified professionals and, where possible, verify the credentials and institutional affiliations of their healthcare providers.
The outcome of this debate will likely shape the standards of Indian medical education for the next generation. While the need for more specialists is undeniable, FOGSI and its peers maintain that the price of filling a seat should never be the safety of a patient.
Medical Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare professionals before making any health-related decisions or changes to your treatment plan. The information presented here is based on current research and expert opinions, which may evolve as new evidence emerges.
References
-
FOGSI Statement: Economic Times Health. (2026, February 11). FOGSI seeks rollback of NEET-PG percentile cuts; flags ‘pay-to-enter’ risk. * NBEMS Official Notice: National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences. (2026, January 13). Reduction in qualifying percentile for NEET-PG 2026. * Supreme Court Proceedings: New Indian Express. (2026, February 7). SC seeks explanation on NEET-PG cut-off percentiles.
