New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has recently dismissed a writ petition that challenged the method used by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to allot Post-Graduate (PG) medical seats. The petitioner had alleged that AIIMS was illegally allotting more than 50% of its seats in certain disciplines through 'Institutional Preference', potentially sidelining more meritorious candidates from across the country.
A vacation bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declined to entertain the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, in a move that leaves the door open for future legal clarity, the Court noted that the "question of law" regarding the extent and manner of such preferences remains open for later determination.
The legal battle centered on a 23-year-old medical aspirant who appeared for the Institute of National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INI-CET). Despite securing an impressive All India Rank (AIR) of 287 and a percentile of 99.655, the petitioner failed to secure a seat in her preferred disciplines across 17 premium institutes, including various AIIMS branches.
The petitioner argued that AIIMS was effectively converting "Institutional Preference" into "Institutional Reservation." In legal terms, a 'preference' is a weightage or a priority given to internal candidates, whereas 'reservation' is a fixed quota that shuts out others.
According to the petitioner, candidates with significantly lower ranks were securing seats in specialized disciplines simply because they had completed their MBBS from an AIIMS institute. It was alleged that in some specific departments, the allotment reached as high as 100% for internal candidates, which the petitioner claimed was a direct violation of previous landmark judgments of the Apex Court.
The petition heavily relied on two historic Supreme Court cases:
- AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS (2002)
- Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003)
In these cases, the Supreme Court had struck down "institutional reservation" but allowed "institutional preference" up to a limit of 50% of the seats available in the open category. The petitioner contended that the current practice at AIIMS ignores these limits, leading to a "chilling effect" on public health. The argument presented was that if less meritorious candidates occupy specialist seats, the quality of healthcare professionals available to the public might suffer, thereby violating the Right to Life and Health under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Responding to the allegations, AIIMS filed a detailed counter-affidavit defending its admission process. The institute argued that the petitioner’s failure to get a seat was not due to any systemic flaw but due to her own highly selective choices.
AIIMS clarified the following points in court:
- Selective Preferences: The institute pointed out that the petitioner had only opted for 10 specific seats out of a total pool of 400 available seats.
- The 50% Rule: AIIMS maintained that institutional preference does not exceed 50% of the total unreserved seats in the institution. In fact, they claimed that the actual number of seats filled through this preference varies between 18% to 24% across different AIIMS branches.
- The Roster System: AIIMS relied on a more recent judgment, Student Association AIIMS, Bhopal v. AIIMS, New Delhi, which directed the implementation of institutional preference through a specific "roster system." Under this system, while the overall institution-wide limit is maintained at 50%, the distribution might vary from one department (discipline) to another. This explains why some departments might seem to have more internal candidates than others.
While the petitioner raised significant constitutional questions regarding Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom of Profession), and 21 (Right to Life), the Court was not inclined to intervene at this stage under its writ jurisdiction.
The dismissal suggests that the Court found the current implementation by AIIMS to be largely in line with the established "roster system" protocols, or at least not a clear enough violation to warrant an emergency intervention in the middle of an ongoing admission cycle. By leaving the "question of law open," the bench has ensured that if there is a fundamental disagreement on how "50% preference" is calculated in the future, it can be debated in a more appropriate legal proceeding.
For thousands of INI-CET aspirants, this order brings a temporary conclusion to the uncertainty surrounding the current year's allotments. However, it also highlights the intense competition and the complex layers of preference that govern admissions to India’s premier medical institutions.
The case serves as a reminder that "merit" in the Indian legal context is often balanced against "institutional continuity." AIIMS argues that students trained in their own ecosystem are better suited for their advanced PG programs, while outside candidates continue to push for a more "open" meritocracy where your rank is the only thing that matters, regardless of where you did your MBBS.
The dismissal of the petition (Dr. Sukrit Nanda M. v. Union of India) reaffirms the status quo for AIIMS admissions. While the petitioner’s dream of a seat in this round may have ended, the broader debate over how much "preference" is too much remains a hot topic in Indian medical education. For now, the roster system stands, and AIIMS continues to enjoy the autonomy to prioritize its own graduates within the 50% ceiling set by the law.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Dr. Sukrit Nanda M. v. Union of India & Anr.
- Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 464 of 2024
- Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
- Advocates for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. PB Suresh, Adv. Nikhil A Menon
- Advocates for AIIMS: AoR Dushyant Parashar, Adv. Manu Parashar