From rank-based admissions to lower fees: Decoding NMC's proposed NEET-PG reforms

The biggest proposed change is a shift from percentile-based eligibility to rank-only counselling for NEET-PG and NEET-SS. Candidates would receive ranks rather than declared percentile marks, and counselling would proceed according to those ranks. The aim is to reduce vacant seats and avoid repeated cut-off changes.

The proposal follows a controversy in which qualifying thresholds were sharply lowered after about 9,000 seats remained vacant after the second counselling round. Reserved-category candidates could qualify with scores as low as minus 40 out of 800, while the general and EWS threshold fell to the seventh percentile. The committee warned that standards must not be weakened.

Other recommendations include digitising seat verification and admission documents, lowering fees for non-clinical courses, reviewing residents’ stipends and using biometric verification. The rank-only plan is approved in principle but is not final. New regulations and stakeholder consultation still await the court’s final directions.

A percentile-based system measures relative performance against other candidates. Under the current arrangement, candidates must reach a prescribed minimum percentile before entering postgraduate counselling. Authorities can lower that percentile when seats remain vacant, widening the group allowed to compete for admission.

A rank-only system would work differently. Candidates would be ordered according to their performance, and counselling would use that order. The NMC affidavit says results would show ranks only, with no percentile marks declared. This removes the formal step of announcing and later lowering a qualifying percentile.

The change could make counselling more direct, but it does not automatically settle the standards question. The expert committee specifically warned against allowing candidates with grossly inadequate or negative performance to become eligible. The proposed regulations are still unfinished, so the final eligibility rules and safeguards remain undecided.

Around 9,000 postgraduate medical seats remained vacant after the second round of NEET-PG counselling. This large number created pressure to make more candidates eligible, because unfilled seats can disrupt specialist training and leave colleges without admitted students.

The response was a sharp reduction in qualifying thresholds. On January 13, 2026, the qualifying percentile for reserved-category candidates was reduced to zero, making scores as low as minus 40 out of 800 eligible. For general and Economically Weaker Section candidates, the threshold dropped from the 50th percentile to the seventh percentile.

The decision became the centre of a Supreme Court case. Petitioners argued that admitting candidates with zero or negative scores could dilute minimum standards in medical education. The proposed rank-only model is intended to address vacancies without repeatedly lowering a published percentile, but the committee still insisted that standards must be protected.

For students, rank-based counselling could create a clearer route into available seats because every candidate is ordered for counselling. It might reduce uncertainty caused by changing percentiles. For colleges, a larger ranked pool could help fill seats that otherwise remain vacant, supporting the start of training and use of approved capacity.

The critical mechanism is that candidates would be counselled by rank rather than filtered through a declared percentile. That could avoid repeating the 2026 controversy, when the reserved-category threshold reached zero and scores as low as minus 40 out of 800 became eligible. Yet rank alone does not prove adequate preparation.

The committee therefore warned against admitting candidates with grossly inadequate or negative performance. The consequences depend on final safeguards and regulations. The proposal has only been approved in principle, and the NMC is waiting for court directions before seeking stakeholder suggestions and taking further steps.

Counselling has been delayed because several organisations must coordinate, while important tasks have remained manual. The MCC relied on colleges to provide and verify seat details. Newly approved seats could also be added after the first round began, forcing fresh checks and changes to the counselling schedule.

The committee also found that candidates had to visit colleges physically, submit original documents and later retrieve them when upgrading seats. Document release and fee refunds caused further inconvenience. An updated, verified seat matrix shared by the NMC before counselling would give the MCC a more reliable starting point.

Online document submission and handling could reduce journeys and prevent colleges from repeatedly managing physical files. Better digital coordination could also limit extensions caused by changing seat information. The article identifies these reforms as recommendations, not completed changes, so their effect depends on implementation by the NMC, MCC, colleges and state authorities.

The reform tries to balance two competing goals: avoiding vacant specialist-training seats and protecting minimum standards. Under the current system, authorities can lower the qualifying percentile when seats remain empty. That may enlarge eligibility, but it also creates controversy when very low scores qualify.

A rank-only process would rank candidates by performance and conduct counselling in that order. It would remove the practice of declaring a percentile and then lowering it. The context is stark: after about 9,000 seats were vacant, reserved-category eligibility reached zero percentile, and scores as low as minus 40 out of 800 qualified.

The committee’s warning provides the proposed safeguard. The sanctity of NEET examinations should remain intact, and candidates with grossly inadequate or negative performance should not become eligible merely because seats are available. The balance is not settled: regulations remain unfinished, and the NMC awaits court directions before moving ahead.

NEET-PG is the national entrance examination used for admission to postgraduate medical education in India. In practical terms, it is the gateway for doctors seeking specialist training after their initial medical qualification. The article discusses its counselling because the exam’s results determine which candidates can compete for postgraduate seats.

The current process uses a minimum qualifying percentile before counselling begins. Authorities may lower that threshold if seats remain vacant. The article describes how this happened after about 9,000 seats were unfilled: the reserved-category threshold reached zero, and scores as low as minus 40 out of 800 became eligible. The decision prompted a Supreme Court challenge.

NEET-PG matters because the system affects candidates, medical colleges and training standards. The proposed reform would rank candidates without declaring percentiles, while adding digital processes and other changes. The article also mentions NEET-SS, but does not provide a separate definition of that examination.