NEW DELHI: Sukrit Nanda M, who secured the 287th rank in the Institutes of National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INICET), approached the Supreme Court on Monday after failing to secure a postgraduate (PG) seat at the prestigious All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi. Despite her high ranking, the seat was allotted to a candidate with a significantly lower rank of 10,721, due to AIIMS’ erroneous application of ‘institutional preference’ as a form of de facto reservation for in-house doctors.
Senior advocate P B Suresh, representing Nanda, presented the case before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Suresh argued that the Supreme Court had previously addressed the issue of institutional reservation in two landmark judgments, in 2002 and 2023. In these rulings, the Court had declared institutional reservation unconstitutional but allowed institutional preference, limited to up to 50% of the seats available in the open category.
Contrary to these rulings, AIIMS allocated more than 50% of the seats in certain disciplines to candidates eligible for institutional preference. In some cases, AIIMS even allocated 100% of the seats to such candidates. Suresh emphasized that the Supreme Court had stipulated that institutional preference could be extended to candidates who had completed their MBBS studies at AIIMS, but this should not equate to reserving seats for them.
The petition argued that AIIMS’ current practice breaches the Supreme Court’s directives by treating institutional preference as a de facto reservation, thus disadvantaging candidates like Nanda who performed exceptionally well in the entrance test. The petition clarified that ‘institutional preference’ should mean that, if two candidates are otherwise equally qualified, the candidate who qualifies for the institutional preference would be preferred. This does not imply an automatic allocation of seats to in-house candidates irrespective of their ranks.
In response, the Supreme Court bench issued notices to the Centre and AIIMS, Delhi, seeking their responses to the petition within a week. The bench’s intervention highlights the ongoing tension between institutional preference and reservation policies in India’s competitive medical education landscape.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future allocation of seats in premier medical institutions like AIIMS. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Nanda, it may mandate AIIMS to revise its current seat allocation policies to align with constitutional principles and previous Court rulings, ensuring a fairer and more merit-based system for all candidates. This case underscores the importance of adhering to judicial precedents to maintain the integrity and fairness of the medical education system in India.
SOURCE:
TIMES OF INDIA
