On July 29, the Supreme Court requested responses from the Union and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). This regarding a petition challenging the excessive reservation quota under ‘Institutional Preference’ for postgraduate admissions. The petition alleges that this quota, reserves seats for current AIIMS MBBS students. It exceeds the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court in previous rulings. Thus violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Background
The petitioner contends that several institutes, part of the National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INICET). They have allocated more than the permissible 50% of seats under ‘Institutional Preference,’. This is contrary to the Supreme Court’s mandate in the Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. case. This 2003 decision allowed a 50% quota as an interim measure. Thus, urging the state to develop a fair seat allocation mechanism based on merit. However, the petitioner claims these directives have been ignored for over two decades.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted that the issue involves both the implementation of the quota. Moreover its excess beyond the 50% threshold. The bench decided to issue a notice, with the CJI stating, “Let’s see what they have to say. We will keep it next week.”
The petition was filed by a doctor who, despite securing an all-India rank of 287 (99.655 percentile) in the INICET for the July 2024 session, did not receive a single seat after two rounds of counseling. The petition highlights that at AIIMS Delhi, candidates with ranks in the tens of thousands were allocated seats, whereas the petitioner was not.
Arguments
Senior Advocate PB Suresh, representing the petitioner, informed the court that in some cases, the reservation for ‘Institutional Preference’ exceeded 100%. The petition argues that the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions did not intend for the quota to overshadow merit-based admissions or promote mediocrity. It emphasizes that the quota should be applied only when candidates have identical scores.
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to:
- Allot a seat in any one discipline applied for in the current academic session.
- Adhere to the 50% limit for ‘Institutional Preference’ as established by the Supreme Court.
- Implement the Supreme Court’s suggestion to codify the manner of applying ‘Institutional Preference.’
- Frame rules to ensure ‘Institutional Preference’ is used only when candidates are equally meritorious.
The petition is represented by Senior Advocate PB Suresh. Along with Advocate on Record Vipin Nair and Mr. Nikhil Menon.
