Supreme Court Declines To Order Reduction Of NEET UG Cutoff For BAMS Admissions 2025–26

The Supreme Court today refused to order reduction of the NEET UG qualifying cutoff for admission to BAMS courses for the academic year 2025–26, observing that the academic year is about to end.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to grant interim relief to ayurvedic colleges seeking reduction in cutoff in order to ensure no seat remains vacant.

“We have perused the affidavit on vacant seats as well as NCIMS opinion on reduction of cutoff. We are of the opinion that the academic year 2025-26 would now come to an end. We are not inclined to pass any interim order”, the Court stated.

The Court passed this order in light of stand taken by the National Commission of Indian System of Medicine that reduction of the cutoff will result in lowering standard of education.

The NCIMS affidavit stated that the cutoff score for admission to AYUSH undergraduate courses for 2025–26 ranged from 686 to 112 and that any further reduction in percentile would adversely affect the quality and standards of education. It was also pointed out that the cutoff was already lower than the previous academic year, when it ranged from 720 to 127.

“In the present academic year, the cutoff score for admission in AYUSH UG course range from 686 to 112 any further reduction in percentile would adversely affect the quality and standard of Education. It is also on the lower side from the previous year cutoff, which ranges from 720 to 127”, the affidavit stated.

The pleas were filed by ayurvedic colleges contending that several BAMS seats were lying vacant and seeking an immediate reduction of the NEET UG qualifying percentile for the ongoing academic year.

Appearing for regulator National Commission of Indian System of Medicine, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave submitted that reduction in the qualifying percentile could not be considered at this stage since the academic year had already begun and students had started attending classes from November 1, 2025.

Reading from an affidavit filed by the regulator, Dave submitted that for the academic year 2025–26, a total of 12,36,531 students qualified in NEET UG for 2,23,487 sanctioned seats across all streams of allopathy and AYUSH courses.

Out of these, 63,346 students qualified from Madhya Pradesh and 1,25,727 from Maharashtra. She said the total number of undergraduate Ayurveda seats across the country for 2025–26 was 43,006, with 3,480 seats in Madhya Pradesh and 12,339 seats in Maharashtra.

According to the affidavit, the number of vacant seats in Madhya Pradesh was 436, while the All-India quota was fully filled. In Maharashtra, only 50 seats were vacant, of which 38 were under the state quota. The total number of vacant Ayurveda seats across the country was stated to be 1,308, which constituted 3.10 per cent of the total seats.

Dave further submitted that the next NEET UG examination for the academic year 2026–27 had already been announced and was scheduled to be held on May 3, 2026.

“In the present academic year, only 1308, seats are vacant at the time of third extension. That is till 22nd of January. That is only 3.10% of total Ayurveda seats which are vacant. Last year, it was 7% even after reduction. This year after extending the cutoff date, it is only 3% which are remaining. It can be that the students don't want to go to these colleges”, she said.

The affidavit also pointed out that the Commission had already considered requests made by institutes and counselling authorities and had extended the cutoff date on three occasions.

Permitting admissions at this stage would result in delayed commencement and completion of the compulsory internship, which would affect students' eligibility to appear in the All-India AYUSH Postgraduate Entrance Test, as internship completion dates have already been fixed earlier, according to the affidavit.

Dave added that it was possible that students were unwilling to join certain colleges and that standards could not be lowered merely to fill seats.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioning colleges, submitted that they were not seeking a drastic reduction of the cutoff as was done for NEET PG, but were seeking a reduction of around 15 percentile. He submitted that as per UGC rules, colleges were required to pay faculty salaries as per the Seventh Pay Commission, which involved substantial expenditure, and that vacant seats meant loss of fee income.

Sankaranarayanan further submitted that the regulator was not following the policy it had followed in the previous two academic years.

Justice Narasimha observed that the Court had to take a balanced view and was concerned about seats going vacant, while also noting that the next NEET cycle was approaching.

Sankaranarayanan submitted that colleges could not increase fees for existing students to cover losses. He urged the Court to consider some discretionary reduction in the cutoff if not a full 15 percentile reduction.

“We are now hamstrung because they are not following the policy that they followed in the last 2 years. We have to burden someone now, we can't increase the fees of the existing students. 12% seats in MP are vacant. If not 15 percentile some discretionary reduction may be made”, he said.

However, Dave highlighted that nearly 10 lakh students who qualified in NEET UG are still available and their unwillingness to join certain colleges could not justify lowering standards.

Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu that standards would not be compromised and pointed out that while fewer students had qualified in the present year, around 18,500 seats had been increased.

Justice Narasimha remarked that the issue touched upon the credibility of the system and that at some tipping point a decision had to be taken.

The Court, however, declined to grant interim relief for the academic year 2025–26 and directed that the petitions be heard along with similar matters pending before it.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 13/2026

Case Title – NRI Institute of Ayurvedic Medical Sciences v. Union of India