The Court declined to entertain the Article 32 petition challenging AIIMS’ alleged allotment of more than 50% post-graduate medical seats through institutional preference, while leaving the question of law open.
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the alleged practice of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) of allotting more than 50% seats in certain postgraduate medical disciplines through institutional preference. A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the Court kept the legal question open for future consideration.
Petitioner Challenged AIIMS Institutional Preference Policy
A 23-year-old postgraduate medical aspirant filed the petition. She argued that AIIMS was allotting more than 50% of seats through institutional preference. According to her, this practice violated earlier Supreme Court rulings in AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS (2002) and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003).
The petitioner appeared for the INICET examination conducted by AIIMS. She secured All India Rank 287 and scored in the 99.655 percentile. During counselling, she selected six disciplines across 17 institutes. However, she failed to secure a seat in the first round.
Claim That Lower-Ranked Candidates Received Seats
The petitioner alleged that candidates ranked below her received seats because of institutional preference. She stated that she again failed to secure a seat in the second counselling round for the same reason. This led her to approach the Supreme Court.
She argued that earlier Supreme Court judgments had struck down institutional reservation. At the same time, the Court had allowed institutional preference up to 50% of open-category seats. According to the petitioner, AIIMS exceeded this limit. She claimed that some disciplines allotted even 100% of seats through institutional preference.
The petitioner further argued that the earlier judgments allowed only preference for AIIMS MBBS graduates and not reservation. She claimed that the present system unfairly allowed lower-ranked candidates to secure seats over higher-ranked candidates.
Alleged Violation Of Constitutional Rights
The petitioner alleged violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 41 of the Constitution. She argued that excessive institutional preference could negatively affect public healthcare standards. She also sought allotment of a seat in one of her preferred disciplines. Additionally, she requested a direction limiting institutional preference to 50% in postgraduate education.
AIIMS Opposed The Petition
AIIMS opposed the petition through a counter affidavit. The institute argued that the petitioner failed to secure a seat because of her own choices and not because of any wrongful action by AIIMS. It also alleged that she had suppressed material facts.
According to AIIMS, the petitioner had actually secured rank 860 and had selected only 10 seats out of nearly 400 available options. AIIMS further stated that only 75 unreserved seats were available in her chosen subject and institution combinations. Out of these, fewer than 20 seats were allotted through institutional preference.
AIIMS Relied On Recent Supreme Court Judgment
AIIMS relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Student Association AIIMS, Bhopal v. AIIMS, New Delhi. It stated that the institutional preference system currently followed by AIIMS was based on that ruling. AIIMS also submitted that the Supreme Court had directed implementation of institutional preference through a roster system.
According to the counter affidavit, institutional preference cannot exceed 50% of unreserved seats in any institution. AIIMS stated that the actual allocation under institutional preference varies between 18% and 24% of total postgraduate seats across institutions.
AIIMS also clarified that there is no subject-wise reservation under institutional preference. The institute stated that allocations may differ between disciplines as long as the overall institutional limit remains within the prescribed cap. It further clarified that reservations for SC, ST, OBC, EWS, and PWD categories operate separately.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 while keeping the legal issue open for future adjudication.
