NIMS University vs. Union of India and Others
Background
NIMS University approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 seeking two reliefs: (a) a lowering of the minimum qualifying percentile for admission to Super Specialty (DM/MCh) medical courses for the academic year 2021-22, and (b) a direction to the Medical Counselling Committee to conduct a further "mop up" and stray-vacancy round of NEET-Super Specialty counselling to fill the large number of vacant seats. The petitioner pointed out that 940 out of 4,691 Super Specialty seats were lying vacant, and that in the two preceding academic years the Union Government had itself reduced the qualifying percentile (from 50 to 30, and then to 45) to fill similar vacancies.
Decision Breakdown
The Court declined to direct a reduction of the percentile, holding that fixing eligibility standards for admission is a matter of academic policy entrusted to the Union Government in consultation with the medical regulator, and that the government's reasoned decision, taken after a formal meeting of stakeholders, not to compromise merit standards for these apex-level super-specialty courses was neither arbitrary nor extraneous. However, on the alternative prayer, the Court recorded the Additional Solicitor General's assurance that a mop-up round of counselling, including for stray vacancies, would be held for the remaining vacant seats while keeping the percentile unchanged at 50. The petition was disposed of on that basis.
Lesson Learnt
Courts are reluctant to second-guess government policy on academic eligibility standards unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary or irrational; a citizen or institution challenging such a policy must show more than inconvenience or seat vacancy. It must show the decision-making process itself was unreasoned or unfair.