States ignore Supreme Court, differ on NEET-PG seat norms

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in January 2025 that residence-based preferences cannot determine postgraduate medical admissions under the state quota, discrepancies remain across states, according to parents of NEET-PG aspirants. The court's Jan 29, 2025, decision in the Dr Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goel case stipulated that NEET-PG scores should be the sole basis for admissions, with only limited institutional preference allowed.

However, several states, particularly private medical colleges, continue to implement state-specific eligibility conditions in their state counselling processes.

Gujarat mandates additional state-specific eligibility conditions for candidates who completed MBBS outside the state. Maharashtra permits admission to only certain candidates with Maharashtra domicile who studied outside the state. Karnataka allows candidates from other states to participate in counselling but does not grant Karnataka reservation benefits. These divergent rules have sparked concerns among parents that students with identical NEET-PG scores may not have equal opportunities to secure PG seats.

A July 2025 representation to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) demanded uniform implementation of the Supreme Court's decision, a common national counselling portal, and biannual NEET-PG examinations. The PMO acknowledged the grievance, but no final decision has been communicated. Parents also argue that the current system increases costs, as candidates must register separately for multiple counselling processes, each with distinct eligibility rules, timelines, and security deposits.

The National Medical Commission (NMC) maintains that domicile or residence-based reservation under the state quota falls within state jurisdiction and advised complainants to approach the respective state or union territory. A similar complaint to the PMO in 2022, seeking uniform rules, was closed after noting the concerns.