Back
Supreme Court Shuts Door on Urgent Plea, But Leaves PG Seat Debate Simmering
In a brief but pointed order, a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe of the declined to entertain Writ Petition (C) No. 464 of 2024 filed by Dr. Sukrit Nanda M against the and . The petitioner challenged the premier institute's practice of allocating over 50%—and in some cases, even 100%—of postgraduate (PG) medical seats in certain disciplines through . While dismissing the plea under , the court explicitly left the underlying open.
High-Ranking Aspirant Locked Out: The Spark
Dr. Sukrit Nanda M, a 23-year-old PG aspirant, secured an All India Rank (AIR) of 287 in the INICET exam with a stellar 99.655 percentile. She opted for six disciplines across 17 institutes but failed to bag a seat in the first two rounds of counseling. Her grievance? Candidates with lower ranks snatched seats thanks to 's policy, which prioritizes its own MBBS graduates.
countered that the petitioner's actual rank was 860 and she was overly selective, choosing just 10 out of 400 possible seats. In her preferred subject-institute combos, only 75 unreserved seats were available, with fewer than 20 going to candidates.
Petitioner's Volley: Preference Masquerading as Reservation?
Dr. Nanda argued that 's approach violates landmark Supreme Court rulings like Students Union v. (2002) and Saurabh Chaudri v. (2003). Those judgments struck down outright but permitted preference limited to 50% of open category seats—and no more than 50% of the institution's MBBS seats.
She claimed routinely exceeds these caps, effectively reserving seats and sidelining higher-ranked outsiders. This, she said, breaches Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (profession), 21 (life/liberty), and 41 (right to work/education), while endangering public health by favoring lower-scorers with "low intent and acumen." Relief sought: a seat in her chosen discipline and a cap on preference at 50%.
Strikes Back: Roster Compliance, Not Violation
filed a robust counter-affidavit, blaming the petitioner's choices, not any malafide intent. It leaned on a recent ruling, , which endorsed a for implementing preference. Key clarifications:
- Preference never exceeds 50% of unreserved seats per institution or 50% of MBBS seats.
- Actual allocation: 18-24% of total PG seats across institutes.
- No subject-wise reservation for preference (unlike SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PWD quotas); numbers vary by discipline but stay within overall limits.
accused the petitioner of suppressing facts, insisting its system aligns perfectly with Supreme Court directives.
Precedents Under the Microscope: Drawing the Line Between Preference and Reservation
The 2001-2003 trilogy— Students Union and Saurabh Chaudri —drew a firm line: no institutional quotas, but measured preference to retain talent. The recent Bhopal case refined this with a roster, ensuring flexibility without rigidity. The bench's refusal to intervene suggests these guardrails hold, at least for now under 's extraordinary jurisdiction.
Echoes from the Bench: The Order in Full
The court's observation was crisp:
"it was not inclined to entertain the petition under
of the Constitution
. The
was however left open."
No deeper dive, but the openness signals potential for future scrutiny via regular channels.
Implications: Stability for Now, Uncertainty Ahead
The dismissal maintains 's current allotment process, reassuring institutional alumni while frustrating All-India merit aspirants. With the legal question ajar, similar challenges could resurface—perhaps testing the roster's limits or equality claims more rigorously. For PG hopefuls, it's a reminder: rank high, choose wisely, and watch the preference puzzle evolve.
