The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling on Tuesday, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that contested the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences' (NBEMS) controversial decision to permit counselling for SC/ST/OBC candidates who scored as low as -40 out of 800 marks in the NEET-PG 2025 examinations. This dismissal underscores the judiciary's stance on policy matters and its reluctance to intervene in ongoing legal proceedings.
Court Proceedings and Bench Decision
A division bench, led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, presided over the case. During the hearing, the court was informed that the Delhi High Court had previously dismissed a similar PIL, categorizing the issue as a policy matter beyond judicial purview. Additionally, it was noted that another petition on this subject is currently pending before the Supreme Court, leading the Allahabad High Court to decline interference, thereby upholding the principle of judicial restraint.
Petitioner's Arguments and Constitutional Concerns
The petitioner, Abhinav Gaur, vehemently argued that NBEMS's move is unconstitutional, alleging a violation of Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity in public employment. Gaur contended that the drastic reduction in cut-off marks undermines the integrity of a merit-based selection process, potentially compromising the quality of medical professionals entering the field.
Background of the Cut-off Reduction
The PIL highlighted that following the second round of counselling, over 18,000 NEET-PG seats remained vacant. In response, NBEMS implemented a substantial reduction in qualifying criteria. For the general (EWS) category, the cut-off was lowered from 276 to 103 marks, while for the general-PwBD category, it dropped from 255 to 90 marks. Most controversially, for SC/ST/OBC candidates, the cut-off was slashed from 235 to -40 marks, a decision that has sparked widespread debate.
Implications for Public Health and Patient Safety
Gaur's plea emphasized that such a significant lowering of standards could adversely impact public health and patient safety. The petition argued that allowing candidates who do not meet the minimum threshold to qualify might affect the right to health and life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This raises critical questions about maintaining academic precision and ensuring that future doctors possess the requisite skills and knowledge.
Legal and Policy Ramifications
The court's dismissal reflects a broader legal perspective that certain decisions, particularly those involving educational policies and reservation criteria, are best left to specialized bodies like NBEMS. By referencing the Delhi High Court's stance and the pending Supreme Court petition, the Allahabad High Court reinforced the idea that judicial intervention should be limited in such complex, policy-driven matters.
Future Outlook and Ongoing Debates
As the matter remains sub judice in the Supreme Court, this ruling is unlikely to be the final word on the issue. The debate over balancing merit with inclusivity in medical admissions continues to resonate across India, with stakeholders from the medical community, policymakers, and the public closely monitoring developments. The outcome could set precedents for how cut-offs and counselling processes are managed in future competitive exams.
