Delhi High Court Seeks AIIMS Response on INI-CET 2026 Seat Allocation Challenge
The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) regarding a petition challenging the seat allocation process for postgraduate courses under the National Importance Combined Entrance Test (INI-CET). The court has directed the medical institution to submit its response before the next hearing.
On July 3, Justice Jasmeet Singh took up the matter after the father of a candidate approached the court with concerns about irregularities in the allocation process. The petitioner, represented by advocate Tanvi Dubey, alleged significant discrepancies between the final seat matrix published for MD Ophthalmology and the subsequent mock round allotment results.
Alleged Discrepancies in Seat Matrix
According to the petition, the final seat matrix issued in May showed a total of 13 seats for MD Ophthalmology at AIIMS, with five of those seats falling under the Unreserved (UR) category. However, when the mock round allotment was released, only two open UR seats were displayed, alongside one seat each reserved for institutional preference and persons with benchmark disabilities.
The petitioner’s daughter had secured an overall rank of 146 in the INI-CET July 2026 examination and participated in the counselling process based on the initially published seat distribution. The sudden reduction in available UR seats came as a shock to candidates who had planned their preferences accordingly.
Transparency Concerns Raised
The petition argues that once authorities publish a final seat matrix indicating the availability of seats in specific categories, they cannot drastically alter the actual seat position through undisclosed means. This lack of transparency in the allotment process could potentially disadvantage qualified candidates who relied on the official information to make informed decisions during counselling.
The petitioner emphasized that the final seat position displayed in the official matrix should reflect the true availability of seats. When there is a mismatch between what is notified and what is actually offered during allotment rounds, deserving candidates may lose out on opportunities they rightfully earned through competitive examination.
Impact on Candidates
The case highlights broader concerns about the clarity and fairness of the INI-CET counselling procedure. Candidates invest significant time and effort preparing for these competitive entrance tests, and the accuracy of seat information plays a crucial role in their decision-making process during counselling.
The petitioner’s daughter, like many other aspirants, had strategically chosen her preferences based on the published seat matrix. The discrepancy between the notified seats and those actually available in the mock round could have affected her chances of securing admission in her preferred specialization.
Legal Proceedings Ahead
The court has scheduled the next hearing for August, giving AIIMS adequate time to file its formal response to the allegations raised in the petition. The institution’s explanation regarding the variation in seat numbers between the final matrix and the mock round allotment will be crucial in determining the merits of the case.
This legal challenge underscores the importance of maintaining transparency and consistency in admission procedures for prestigious medical institutions. Candidates and their families expect that the information provided by authorities is accurate and reliable, especially when it directly impacts educational and career prospects.
The outcome of this case could potentially influence how seat allocation processes are conducted in future INI-CET cycles, ensuring greater accountability and clarity for all stakeholders involved in the medical education admission system.
