NEET PG 2025 Crisis: Doctors Demand Accountability Over Exam Delays, Opacity, and Controversial Cutoff Cuts from NBEMS and Health Ministry

Spread the Message

Read Time:3 Minute, 43 Second

New Delhi, January 20, 2026 – The Federation of Resident Doctors’ Association (FORDA) has issued a scathing critique of the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) handling of NEET PG 2025, highlighting administrative lapses, procedural opacity, and a drastic cutoff reduction to zero and negative percentiles that doctors say undermines merit-based postgraduate medical admissions. Over 200,000 MBBS graduates competed in the exam on August 3, 2025, after Supreme Court intervention scrapped a flawed two-shift format, yet persistent delays in results, answer keys, counselling, and centre allocations exacerbated hardships for aspirants. FORDA urges the Union Health Ministry and NBEMS for immediate reforms to restore transparency and protect India’s medical education standards.

Timeline of Disruptions

The saga began in March 2025 when NBEMS announced a two-shift exam format for June 15, citing logistics for 900 centres nationwide, but aspirants challenged its fairness due to untransparent normalisation processes meant to adjust for varying question difficulties. In May 2025, the Supreme Court deemed the multi-shift approach “arbitrary and unreliable,” ordering a single shift and postponing the exam to August 3, which extended uncertainty for candidates amid career delays and financial strains like travel costs of Rs 5,000-10,000. Results emerged on August 19 without provisional answer keys, fuelling distrust, especially after 22 disqualifications for alleged malpractice lacked appeal mechanisms or explanations.

Counselling, typically swift, dragged over 110 days, leaving seats vacant, hospitals understaffed, and patients facing delays. Round 3 counselling started January 15, 2026, amid NBEMS’s January 13 announcement slashing cutoffs: 7th percentile (103 marks) for General/EWS, 5th (90 marks) for General-PwBD, and 0th (-40 marks) for SC/ST/OBC including PwBD—allowing even negative scores due to the exam’s marking (+4 correct, -1 wrong).

Key Grievances from Aspirants and Doctors

FORDA described the process as prioritising “convenience over fairness,” noting distant centre allocations burdened economically weaker and women candidates with safety risks, while high fees (Rs 24,250) compounded losses. National General Secretary Dr. Meet Ghonia acknowledged Ministry challenges but stressed “merit, transparency, and predictability” for young doctors’ confidence. The cutoff slash, aimed at filling 18,000+ vacant seats post-Round 2, drew ire as a “lottery” favouring private colleges’ profits over excellence, with FORDA demanding reversal and a high-level NMC-NBE-resident committee.

Expert Perspectives and Broader Commentary

Dr. Lakshya Mittal, National President of United Doctors Front (UDF), filed a Supreme Court plea challenging the “arbitrary” cutoffs as violating the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which mandates minimum standards, arguing negative scores in clinical specialties compromise merit. FAIMA and other groups echoed calls to withdraw the notification, warning of eroded public trust. While NBEMS justifies the move to optimise seat utilisation amid specialist shortages in rural areas, critics like FORDA counter that it risks quality, potentially driving talent abroad.

This echoes 2023’s -40 cutoff precedent, but 2025’s scale amplifies concerns over systemic governance.

Public Health Implications

India grapples with diagnostic delays and rural specialist deficits; vacant PG seats exacerbate this, but diluting cutoffs may admit underprepared doctors, harming patient care long-term. Delays stalled hospital rosters and training, indirectly affecting service delivery. Economically weaker aspirants face barriers, widening urban-rural and equity gaps in healthcare workforce.

For aspirants, prolonged uncertainty meant deferred life plans; for the system, it signals deeper issues in scaling fair exams for 200,000+ candidates.

Limitations, Counterarguments, and Reform Demands

NBEMS and Ministry cite logistical hurdles in single-shift execution and seat wastage prevention, with zero percentile not guaranteeing seats—allocation remains rank-based. Yet FORDA highlights absent stakeholder input, no data justifying cuts, and opacity in normalisation/disqualifications. Reforms sought include mandatory consultations, answer key releases, fair centre allocations, and transparent policies.

UDF’s plea awaits listing, potentially restoring standards. These lapses erode faith, but balanced reforms could strengthen the ecosystem.

FORDA warns: “NEET PG 2025 will be remembered as the year an institution betrayed its mandate”.

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: