Supreme court dismisses plea against institutional preference quota in AIIMS INI CET admissions

New Delhi: Refusing to interfere with the matter, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea challenging the institutional preference quota for INI-CET postgraduate medical admissions at AIIMS and other Institutes of national importance.

Citing Article 32 of the Constitution, A bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said that it was not inclined to entertain the petitions.

The petition was filed by Dr Sukrit Nanda M and others, with senior advocate P B Suresh and advocate Vipin Nair for the petitioners, and advocate Dushyant Parashar for the AIIMS, New Delhi.

The plea challenged the institutional preference quota in the Institute of National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INI-CET), which is conducted for admission to postgraduate medical courses in premier institutes, including the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and other AIIMS-like institutions.

Also read- NEET PG: SC junks plea seeking institutional level stray round to fill 1,140 vacant seats

During the hearing, AIIMS New Delhi submitted that it scrupulously followed the orders and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments, including the rulings in AIIMS Student Union vs AIIMS & Others (2001), Saurabh Chaudri & Others vs Union of India (2003), and the 2022 order in Student Association AIIMS Bhopal vs AIIMS New Delhi, reports Deccan Herald.

The institute informed the court that institutional preference cannot exceed 50 per cent of the total unreserved seats in any institution, and also cannot go beyond 50 per cent of the MBBS seats in that institution. It said that the actual number of seats permissible under institutional preference varies from 18% to 24% of all the PG seats available at various institutions.

The institution further clarified that, as per the directives of the Supreme Court, there is no subject-wise 'reservation' of seats for institutional preference; the seats allocated for institutional preference can be variable in each discipline, subject to the overall condition that they will not exceed 50 per cent of the unreserved seats at that institution.

"This is different from the subject-wise reservations that are provided only for constitutionally approved reservations, i.e. SC-15 per cent, ST-7.5 per cent, OBC 27 per cent, EWS-10 per cent, PWD 5 per cent," it asserted.

AIIMS also argued that the petitioners failed to secure seats because of the limited choices filled by them during counselling, and not because of any error in the implementation of institutional preference.

After hearing the arguments, the court held, "having heard the counsel for the parties at a considerable length and on carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution."

However, the apex court clarified that the legal question involved in the matter has been kept open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Also read- Supreme court to hear plea on 1,140 vacant NEET PG seats