Archive · 22 Sep 2026
Bombay High Court Rejects Plea to Lower NEET Re-Exam Marks
Some students asked the Bombay High Court to lower the marks needed to pass a NEET-UG re-examination.
They said many students did not attend the re-examination, making it harder for those who did to qualify.
The students also said they might be unable to study medicine in India or other countries without the required score.
Government authorities argued that deciding whether to lower the marks was their responsibility.
The court agreed that this decision belonged to the authorities, not the judges.
It also said the students had not shown that the authorities had violated a legal right or duty.
The court explained that students studying medicine abroad must meet similar standards if they later return to India.
It therefore dismissed the students’ plea and kept the qualifying marks unchanged.
The Bombay High Court dismissed students’ plea to reduce the NEET-UG re-examination’s minimum qualifying marks.
The students argued that absenteeism rose from 3.27% to 12.27% after the original examination was cancelled.
The re-examination’s minimum qualifying scores were 213 for unreserved candidates and 117 for reserved candidates.
Authorities said lowering the marks was discretionary and could be considered only if enough candidates in a category failed to qualify.
The court ruled that uniform eligibility standards were intended to protect medical education and healthcare standards in India and abroad.
- Who
- The Bombay High Court, two students who took the NEET-UG re-examination, and the authorities responsible for setting eligibility marks.
- What
- The court dismissed a request to lower the minimum qualifying marks for the NEET-UG re-examination.
- When
- The court’s order was dated September 21; the re-examination was held on June 21, and the authorities rejected the request on August 20.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Bombay High Court in India.
- Why
- The court said authorities had discretion over the qualifying marks and that uniform standards were necessary for medical education and healthcare.
Students’ Position
Authorities’ and Court’s Position
Whether qualifying marks should be lowered
Students’ Position
The students argued that the marks should be recalculated because absenteeism increased substantially in the re-examination and the original cancellation was not their fault.
Authorities’ and Court’s Position
The authorities argued that lowering the marks was discretionary and could be done only when a sufficient number of candidates in a category failed to reach the minimum.
Effect on access to medical education
Students’ Position
The students said the unchanged scores could prevent them from pursuing medical education in India or abroad and would impair their right to higher education.
Authorities’ and Court’s Position
The court said the students had not established a legal right requiring the authorities to lower the marks or a legal duty that the authorities had failed to perform.
Standards for studying medicine abroad
Students’ Position
The students argued that disqualification caused by high absenteeism in the re-examination was not attributable to them.
Authorities’ and Court’s Position
The court said similar eligibility criteria for study in India and abroad help maintain healthcare standards when students return to India to practice.
- Exam
- National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Under Graduate (NEET-UG)
- Re-examination date
- June 21
- Minimum score, unreserved candidates
- 213
- Minimum score, reserved candidates
- 117
- Absenteeism change
- From 3.27% in the original examination to 12.27% in the re-examination
- Students’ request
- Recalculate and lower the minimum qualifying score based on the number of students who took the first examination
- Court outcome
- Plea dismissed