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

Postgraduate medical admissions in India could undergo a significant overhaul starting with the 2027 counselling cycle, with the National Medical Commission (NMC) proposing to replace the existing percentile-based qualifying system for NEET-PG and NEET-SS with a rank-only system.

The proposed changes also include greater digitisation of counselling, lower fees for non-clinical courses, a review of residents’ stipends and biometric verification to prevent candidates from blocking seats.

The proposals are part of the recommendations of a 12-member expert committee constituted by the Union health ministry on July 23, following the Supreme Court’s intervention in a case challenging the sharp reduction in NEET-PG qualifying cut-offs. The Centre has submitted the committee’s report containing findings and recommendations to the court in an affidavit on Tuesday.

The reforms aim to address two recurring concerns: vacant postgraduate medical seats and delays in counselling that affect the start of the academic session. However, the rank-only proposal is yet to be incorporated into final regulations and formally notified.

Here is what could change and how it would differ from the current system.

No more percentile-based qualifying cut-offs?

Under the existing system, candidates must secure a prescribed minimum percentile to become eligible for postgraduate medical counselling. A percentile indicates a candidate’s relative performance compared with other test-takers. The authorities can lower the qualifying percentile when seats remain vacant, thereby expanding the pool of candidates eligible for admission.

This was at the centre of the controversy following the NEET-PG 2025 counselling process. On January 13, 2026, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) reduced the qualifying percentile for reserved-category candidates to zero, making candidates scoring as low as minus 40 out of 800 eligible for admission. For general and Economically Weaker Section candidates, the cut-off was reduced from the 50th percentile to the seventh percentile.

The decision followed around 9,000 postgraduate seats remaining vacant after the second round of counselling. It was challenged in the Supreme Court by social worker Harisharan Devgan and doctors, who argued that allowing candidates with zero or negative scores to qualify could dilute minimum standards in medical education.

What is proposed: Instead of declaring qualifying percentiles and lowering them to make more candidates eligible, candidates would be ranked according to their performance, with counselling conducted based on these ranks.

The affidavit states: “NMC is in the process of issuing new regulations, which are yet to be finalised, wherein only a rank-based system for NEET-PG and NEET-SS counselling will be adopted; no percentile marks will be declared in results; only ranks will be given to candidates.”

NMC secretary Dr Raghav Langer communicated the decision to the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) on October 1, according to the affidavit. A senior NMC official told HT that the proposal had been approved in principle, but “the commission would wait for the court’s final directions before proceeding with the next steps, including seeking stakeholders’ suggestions.”

The panel has also cautioned that the change should not compromise minimum standards. “The sanctity of NEET examinations should be maintained, and minimum qualifying standards in postgraduate medical education are not diluted to the extent of permitting candidates with grossly inadequate or negative performance to become eligible for admission,” the affidavit said.

Counselling to become more digital

The committee found that counselling delays were partly linked to manual processes and to gaps in coordination among the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), the NMC, colleges, and state authorities.

Two preliminary MCC audit meetings, held on May 20 and June 3, flagged the reliance on colleges for manual verification of seat matrices, delays in adding newly approved seats and repeated extensions of counselling timelines.

Until 2025, MCC depended on colleges to provide and verify seat details. The process was complicated by the fact that newly approved seats could be added by NMC after the first round had begun, requiring further verification and changes to the counselling schedule.

Candidates also had to physically visit colleges to complete admission formalities, submit original documents and seek their return when upgrading to another seat. The committee flagged delays and inconvenience linked to document release and fee refunds.

What is proposed: The panel has recommended that NMC share an updated and verified seat matrix with MCC well before counselling begins. It has also proposed online sharing of NEET-UG, NEET-PG, MDS and super-speciality examination results with state counselling authorities.

A feasibility study for sharing results online with state authorities is under way for the 2027 academic year. The committee has called for counselling to be digitised with minimal human intervention and for MCC to develop standard operating procedures and a project charter that define the responsibilities of different stakeholders.

The charter would also record changes ordered by courts or competent authorities as “institutional memory”, the report said. MCC has been asked to prepare summary reports after each counselling exercise and hold stakeholder meetings before and after counselling.

What has already changed: Some processes have been introduced in the 2026-27 counselling cycle. These include online release of candidates who upgrade their seats, allowing candidates to accept upgraded seats without first physically returning to their earlier colleges, and changes to fee- and document-related procedures. The report also records the introduction of a query-resolution mechanism, informational videos and an online dashboard.

Lower fees for non-clinical courses

The committee has flagged vacancies in pre-clinical and para-clinical postgraduate disciplines, which generally attract fewer candidates than clinical specialities such as general medicine, surgery and paediatrics.

It has recommended that state fee fixation committees consider charging lower fees for non-clinical courses to encourage candidates to take up these seats.

“The fee of non-clinical branches may be a little less so that the candidates feel encouraged to accept the seat and this wastage of medical seats may be prevented,” the report said.

The panel has also suggested considering exemptions from compulsory service bonds for candidates admitted to pre-clinical and para-clinical subjects, leaving the decision to state governments.

Stipends, rural incentives and seat-blocking checks

The committee has called for addressing disparities in stipends between clinical and non-clinical branches, and recommended that states consider incentives for doctors willing to serve in rural areas. It has also suggested reviewing the duration and monetary provisions of compulsory service bonds in consultation with stakeholders.

For BDS and BSc Nursing courses, the panel has flagged vacancies and recommended improving employment opportunities for graduates. It has been suggested to consider discontinuing seats that remain vacant for two to three consecutive years and rationalising fees.

To prevent candidates from appearing in examinations multiple times to block seats, the committee has asked NBEMS and the National Testing Agency (NTA) to explore the use of KYC and biometric verification during entrance examinations.

Why are the changes being considered?

265,980 candidates took NEET-PG 2026 for 63,177 postgraduate medical seats. The previous counselling cycle saw thousands of seats remain vacant, prompting authorities to lower qualifying cut-offs to widen the pool of eligible candidates.

The Supreme Court, while hearing the challenge to the January 2026 cut-off reduction, asked the Centre to explain how the decision would preserve standards in medical education. On May 4, it directed the creation of an institutional mechanism to examine recurring issues in the NEET-PG admission process. The health ministry subsequently formed the expert committee, headed by DGHS director general Dr Loveneesh G Krishna, with representatives from NMC, NBEMS, MCC and other bodies.

Doctors have questioned whether moving away from percentile-based results would, by itself, address concerns over the dilution of qualifying standards.

“Qualifying percentile is not a mere administrative formality; it is the minimum benchmark intended to safeguard academic standards and ultimately the quality of specialists in healthcare. It will be a huge injustice with merit if minimum admission criteria are diluted drastically,” said Dr Raj Shekhar Yadav, one of the petitioners in the case.

“Changing the examination formula does not erase the questions surrounding the drastic reduction of qualifying cut-offs. Vacant seats cannot become an excuse to compromise merit, dilute qualifying standards or experiment with the future of medical education,” said Dr Dhruv Chauhan, chairperson of the Legal Cell for All India Doctors.

A DGHS official, however, defended the proposed changes, saying they were intended to benefit candidates and shorten the counselling process.

“We have made these reforms in the interest of the candidates... The new reforms will also reduce the counselling time, which will subsequently help candidates to start their academic session on time,” the official said.

The proposals are targeted at the 2027 counselling cycle, but their implementation will depend on the finalisation of NMC regulations, the Supreme Court’s directions and consultations with stakeholders.