Introduction
In a significant decision affecting AYUSH education and medical admissions across the country, the Supreme Court of India has declined to order a reduction in the NEET UG qualifying cutoff for admission to Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) courses for the academic year 2025–26. The ruling comes amid concerns raised by Ayurvedic colleges over vacant seats and financial viability, balanced against the regulator’s insistence on maintaining educational standards.
A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe refused to grant interim relief to petitioning colleges, observing that the academic year was already nearing its end and that students had commenced classes months ago. The decision underscores the Court’s consistent approach of prioritising academic certainty, regulatory autonomy, and the credibility of medical education systems over ad hoc interventions.
Background Of The Case
The petitions were filed by several Ayurvedic medical colleges, including NRI Institute of Ayurvedic Medical Sciences v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 13/2026), seeking a reduction in the NEET UG qualifying percentile for BAMS admissions for the ongoing academic year 2025–26. The primary contention raised was that a number of BAMS seats were lying vacant, resulting in financial stress for institutions that are required to pay faculty salaries as per the Seventh Pay Commission.
The colleges argued that unless the cutoff was reduced, many seats would remain unfilled, leading to losses and affecting the sustainability of AYUSH institutions. They also pointed out that in previous academic years, the regulator had adopted a more flexible approach by permitting reductions in qualifying percentiles.
Supreme Court’s Observations
After perusing affidavits placed on record, including data on vacant seats and the opinion of the National Commission of Indian System of Medicine (NCIMS), the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim order.
The Bench observed:
“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 took note of the fact that the academic session had already commenced on November 1, 2025, and that permitting admissions at this late stage could disrupt academic schedules, internships, and eligibility for postgraduate entrance examinations.
Justice Narasimha also highlighted the need for a balanced approach, acknowledging concerns about vacant seats while emphasising that systemic credibility and academic discipline could not be compromised, especially with the next NEET cycle approaching.
Stand Of The NCIMS
The National Commission of Indian System of Medicine, represented by Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, strongly opposed any reduction in the NEET UG cutoff at this stage.
According to the NCIMS affidavit:
- The NEET UG cutoff score for AYUSH undergraduate admissions for 2025–26 ranged from 686 to 112.
- This cutoff was already lower than the previous academic year (2024–25), where the range was 720 to 127.
- Any further reduction would adversely affect the quality and standards of AYUSH education.
The affidavit categorically stated:
“Any further reduction in percentile would adversely affect the quality and standard of education.”
The regulator also pointed out that it had already extended the cutoff date on three occasions after considering requests from institutes and counselling authorities.
Data On Vacant Seats
The Supreme Court was presented with detailed data regarding NEET UG qualification and seat occupancy:
- A total of 12,36,531 students qualified NEET UG for 2,23,487 sanctioned seats across all medical streams, including allopathy and AYUSH.
- The total number of undergraduate Ayurveda seats for 2025–26 was 43,006 nationwide.
- Vacant seats stood at 1,308, which is approximately 3.10% of total Ayurveda seats.
State-wise figures revealed:
- Madhya Pradesh: 436 vacant seats (All-India quota fully filled).
- Maharashtra: Only 50 seats vacant, with 38 under the state quota.
ASG Dave emphasised that last year, even after a reduction in cutoff, nearly 7% seats remained vacant, whereas this year, after extensions, vacancies had reduced to just 3%. She suggested that vacancies could be due to students’ unwillingness to join certain colleges rather than issues with the cutoff itself.
Arguments By The Petitioning Colleges
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioning colleges, submitted that the institutions were not seeking a drastic reduction akin to NEET PG but only a 15 percentile reduction. He argued that colleges faced significant financial burdens due to mandatory faculty pay scales and could not offset losses by increasing fees for existing students.
He further contended that the regulator was not following the same policy it had adopted in the previous two academic years and urged the Court to exercise discretion in allowing at least a partial reduction.
Another Senior Advocate, Dama Sheshadri Naidu, submitted that standards would not be compromised by a modest reduction and highlighted that while fewer students had qualified this year, approximately 18,500 additional seats had been created.
Why The Court Refused Interim Relief
Despite acknowledging the concerns of institutions, the Supreme Court ultimately declined interim relief for several reasons:
- Academic Calendar: The session had already begun, and late admissions would disrupt coursework, internships, and postgraduate eligibility timelines.
- Marginal Vacancies: Only 3.10% seats were vacant nationwide, which the Court did not consider alarming enough to justify lowering standards.
- Regulatory Expertise: The NCIMS, as the expert body, had taken a considered view that further reduction would harm educational quality.
- Systemic Credibility: The Court noted that at some point, a firm decision must be taken to preserve the credibility of the admissions system.
Justice Narasimha remarked that the issue reached a “tipping point” where judicial intervention could undermine regulatory consistency.
What Lies Ahead
While refusing interim relief for the academic year 2025–26, the Supreme Court directed that the petitions be heard along with similar pending matters. This indicates that broader questions regarding cutoff policies, seat planning, and regulatory consistency may still be examined in future hearings.
Notably, the next NEET UG examination for the academic year 2026–27 is scheduled for May 3, 2026, reinforcing the Court’s view that reopening admissions for the current year would be impractical.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s refusal to reduce the NEET UG cutoff for BAMS admissions reflects a careful balancing of institutional concerns and public interest in maintaining educational standards. By deferring to regulatory expertise and prioritising academic certainty, the Court has reaffirmed that seat vacancies alone cannot justify dilution of merit-based प्रवेश norms.
For AYUSH institutions, the ruling serves as a reminder that long-term sustainability must be addressed through structural planning rather than last-minute judicial interventions. For students and regulators alike, the decision reinforces the importance of predictability, transparency, and quality in India’s medical education framework.
Also Read
Supreme Court Stays Punjab & Haryana High Court Order on Tuition Fee During Veterinary Internship
PAID Internship Opportunity: Square Circle Clinic (NALSAR), Apply Now!
