Supreme Court declines to stay declarations of results of seat allocations in INI CET

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declined to stay the declaration of results of seat allocations in post graduate courses in the Institute of National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INI CET), 2024 examinations.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to suspend the announcement of results on a plea by Dr Sukriti Nanda M and others represented by senior advocate P B Suresh and advocate Vipin Nair.

The court fixed the matter for consideration on August 20.

The counsel for the petitioners, who challenged validity of implementation of 50% institutional preference quota, contended the announcement of results of seat allocations could be halted for two days.

AIIMS counsel Dushyant Parashar opposed the plea, saying it would have adverse the impact on admissions in next years and hundreds of doctors were waiting for the results.

Agreeing to the contention, the bench said to stay the announcement of results of counselling was a serious matter, while scheduling the matter for consideration on August 20.

The petitioners questioned validity of the practice of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences of providing a ‘super reservation’ in the garb of ‘institutional preference’ for postgraduate admission.

The lead petitioner said despite the fact that she secured an all-India rank of 287 (99.655 percentile), she was not able to secure PG seat at any of the institutes that are part of the INICET, even after the second round of counseling.

"The seats reserved for the ‘unreserved’ category of students (within which the petitioner falls) were allocated to existing students of the institutes that form part of the INICET. At AIIMS, Delhi itself, students with ranks in the in 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," her plea stated.

Though the Supreme Court in 'AIIMS’ Students Union vs AIIMS & Ors' (2002) and 'Saurabh Chaudri & Ors vs Union of India &Ors (2003) upheld the validity ‘institutional preference’, it was not meant to be at the cost of merit or promote mediocracy.

Their plea said the practice and manner of allocating seats on the basis of ‘institutional preference’, currently being done by the various institutes that form a part of the INICET, directly impinged on and violates the Petitioner’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

"The petitioner was being severely disadvantaged by being treated unequally without any intelligible differentia which has a direct consequence of the petitioner not being able to pursue her professional goals solely due to the respondents’ preferential treatment of those persons who are far less deserving than her," the plea said.

The present case has resulted, in extremely meritorious and deserving students who have a demonstrated acumen and aptitude to provide the most basic human requirement of healthcare, will lose out to complacent and mediocre candidates, the plea claimed.

"Such a practice does not affect a person or even the petitioner in this case at an individual level but, in fact, prejudicially affects the country as a whole and serves to weaken an already stressed healthcare system," it added.