Supreme Court Seeks Response From Union, AIIMS In Challenge To 'Institutional Preference' Quota Exceeding 50% In PG Medical Admissions

The Supreme Court today (July 29)  sought responses from the Union and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in a petition challenging the reservation quota for "Institutional Preference" that exceeds 50% in postgraduate admissions.

The Petitioner has challenged the over-reservation or 'super reservation' of seats under 'Institutional Preference' in the postgraduate admissions as being a violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. The Institutional Preference quota is essentially an internal reservation system where a percentage of post-graduate admission seats are reserved for MBBS students (belonging to the general category) already studying at AIIMS. 

The plea contends that several institutes which form part of the National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INICET) have granted seats under the Institutional Preference beyond the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

In the said decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the 50% (enhanced from 25% as set in AIIMS' Students Union v. AIIMS &Ors. ) Institutional Preference quota in PG admissions to AIIMS. The Court had clarified that this was only an interim measure and directed the state to develop a mechanism to ensure fair allocation of seats based on merit. However, the petitioner claims that these directions have not been acted upon even after 21 years.

During the hearings, the CJI pointed out that the issue contended is at two levels: (1) the application of the quota in the form of reservations and (2) such reservations exceeding the limit of 50%.

" They have done two things, they have applied reservation and in some disciplines, the reservation has exceeded 50%" 

Counsel for the Petitioner, Senior Advocate PB Suresh informed the court that in some instances the reservation for the 'Institutional preference' quota has exceeded 100%. 

Taking note of the same, the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to issue notice in the petition. 

"Okay We will issue notice, let's see what they have to say, We will keep it next week." the CJI said. 

The petition has been filed by a doctor who secured an all-India rank of 287 (99.655 percentile) in the INICET for the July 2024 session but was not awarded a single seat at any INICET institute after two rounds of counselling.

The petition argues that seats reserved for the "Unreserved" category were allocated to existing students of INICET institutes. At AIIMS Delhi, students with ranks in the tens of thousands were granted seats while the petitioner was not.

"It is pertinent to note that at AIIMS, Delhi itself, students with ranks in the the tens of thousands have been granted seats (for example a student with rank 10,721 has been granted a seat) while the Petitioner has not." 

Supreme Court Decisions Did Not Uphold Institutional Preference Quota At The Cost Merit: Petitioner Highlights 

While the decision in AIIMS Student Union v. AIIMS and Suarabh Choudhari v. UOI upheld the constitutionality of the Institutional Preference Quota, it specified that such a quota cannot overtake admissions based on the merit of the candidates. 

The petitioner contends that this preference was not meant to be at the cost of merit or to promote mediocrity.

"It may also be noted that this Hon'ble Court while delivering its judgments in the aforementioned judgments has very clearly stated that merit is paramount. It is respectfully submitted that the intent of this Hon'ble Court, while fixing a maximum percentage for 'Institutional Preference', was and could never have been to allow 'Institutional Preference' to the detriment of meritorious candidates. It could also never have been the intent of this Hon'ble Court to allow 'Institutional Preference' to be allocated to the extent of 100% in certain disciplines or to form a majority of the seats allocated in other disciplines – especially where such disciplines are the most sought after." 

The plea argues that the decisions should be interpreted to mean that a meritorious candidate ranking higher will be given priority over the candidate who's ranked lower but has the benefit of Institutional Preference. Additionally, it is contended that the decision should be construed to apply the benefit of Institutional Preference only when the candidate has scored marks identical to the candidate not having the quota benefit. 

The petition seeks a writ of mandamus (1) directing the respondents (Union and AIIMS) to allot a seat for any one discipline the petitioner preferred; (2) Confine the Institutional Preference Quota to 50% in the post-graduate admissions as per previous Court decisions; (3) directing the respondents to act upon the Supreme Court's previous suggestions and codify how "Institutional Preference" is implemented; (4) It also requests the framing of appropriate rules to ensure that this preference is used only when there is a distinct similarity between two or more candidates. 

a. A Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allot a seat to the Petitioner in any one discipline she had applied for, in the current academic session; and

b. A writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to adhere to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri&Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146 and restrict 'Institutional Preference' for postgraduate education to 50%; and

c. A writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to act upon the suggestion of this Hon'ble Court in the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri&Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146, to codify the manner in which 'Institutional Preference' is to be given effect to without the same being an 'Institutional Reservation'; or

d. A writ of mandamusto the Respondent No.2 to frame appropriate rules to ensure that the 'Institutional Preference' is used as a mechanism to give preference to eligible candidates only when there is a distinct similarity between two or more candidates; and

e. Any other writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 

The Counsels for the Petitioners were Senior Advocate PB Suresh along with AOR Vipin Nair and Mr Nikhil Menon

Case Details: DR. SUKRIT NANDA M. VS. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000464 / 2024