Supreme Court Upholds IIT Admission Criteria: IIT Kharagpur vs. Soutrik Sarangi (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 641

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can a student who has already secured admission in an IIT be barred from appearing for the JEE (Advanced) exam again? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur and a student, Soutrik Sarangi. The court examined the validity of a rule that prevents students who have accepted a seat in an IIT from re-appearing for the JEE (Advanced) exam. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi, with the judgment authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

Soutrik Sarangi appeared for the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Main in 2020 and qualified for the JEE (Advanced) exam. He secured a rank of 4015 and was admitted to the Chemical Engineering Dual Course at IIT Kharagpur. However, he wanted to improve his rank and get admission into a course of his choice. The eligibility criteria for JEE (Advanced) 2021 restricted candidates who had already joined an IIT in 2020 from appearing for the exam again. This rule prevented Soutrik from appearing for the JEE (Advanced) 2021. He challenged this rule, claiming it was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Calcutta High Court allowed Soutrik’s writ petition, stating that the eligibility criteria was discriminatory. The High Court reasoned that both IIT and non-IIT seats are wasted when a candidate leaves a course and that there was no justification for treating IIT candidates differently. The High Court directed IIT to reconsider Soutrik’s case and allow him to appear for the JEE (Advanced) exam. The IIT then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are governed by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. They are declared as institutions of national importance under Entry 64 of the Union List (List I) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Section 33(2)(b) of the Act empowers the IITs to prescribe admission standards. The Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Advanced is conducted by the IITs, while the National Testing Agency (NTA) conducts the JEE (Main) exam. The top 2.5 lakh candidates from JEE (Main) are eligible for JEE (Advanced). The Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) formulates the rules for seat allocation. According to the rules, candidates who reject their seats within the first five rounds or withdraw from the allocated seat can appear for JEE (Advanced) in the subsequent year, provided they meet other eligibility requirements. However, candidates who accept a seat in any IIT but do not withdraw or accept the seat at the admitting institute become ineligible for JEE (Advanced) in subsequent years.

The relevant provision is Criterion 5 of the JEE (Advanced) Information Brochure:

“Criterion 5 – Earlier admission at IITs : A candidate should NOT have been admitted in an IIT irrespective of whether or not he/she continued in the program OR accepted an IIT seat by reporting at a reporting centre in the past. Candidates whose admission at IITs was cancelled after joining any IIT are also NOT eligible to appear in JEE (Advanced) 2020. Candidates who have been admitted to a preparatory course in any of the IITs for the first time in 2019 can appear in JEE (Advanced) 2020. The candidates who paid seat acceptance fee in 2019 but (i) did not report at any reporting centre OR, (ii) withdrew before the last round of seat allotment, OR, (iii) had their seat cancelled (for whatever reason) before the last round of seat allotment for IITs, during the joint seat allocation in 2019, are eligible to appear in JEE (Advanced) 2020. However, in all of the above cases, the candidate is also required to fulfil the conditions mentioned from Criterion 1 to Criterion 4.”

Arguments

Arguments by IIT:

• The IIT argued that the eligibility criterion was neither illegal nor unconstitutional and was based on sound public policy considerations.
• The criterion was designed to avoid wastage or blockage of seats, allowing students to improve their performance in subsequent years if eligible.
• If a candidate did not withdraw from a seat, it would not be possible to fill that seat for the rest of the course.
• The criteria had been in place for over five years and applied uniformly to all candidates.
• Permitting candidates to challenge the system after accepting a seat would undermine the entire examination process.
• The High Court erred in equating IIT seats with non-IIT seats, as the statutory rules were not under challenge.
• Soutrik misled the High Court by suppressing material facts, including that he never opted for computer science and that he had been admitted to IIT Bombay.

Arguments by Soutrik:

• The appeal should not be maintained as IIT did not avail itself of the remedy of an appeal before the Letters Patent Bench.
• Criterion 5 is discriminatory because it differentiates between candidates who are successful in securing admission to IITs and those who secured admission to non-IIT institutions.
• Both categories of candidates appear in the same examination, and the sub-categorization is irrational.
• Whether it is an IIT or a non-IIT technical institution, the consequence of a candidate opting out of a course is the same: loss of one seat.
• Soutrik could not withdraw from the admission process due to inadvertence and should be given the choice of appearing in the current JEE (Advanced) examination.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the court was:

1. Whether the eligibility criteria for JEE (Advanced), which restricts candidates who have already taken admission in an IIT from appearing again, is valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court cited State of UP v Harish Chandra & Ors [1996 (9) SCC 309]* to overrule the objection on maintainability of the appeal, stating that the rule of exhausting appellate remedies is not an immutable practice.
• The Supreme Court referred to the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961* to establish the statutory basis of IITs and their status as institutions of national importance.
• The Supreme Court cited Section 33(2)(b) of the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961* to highlight the power of IITs to prescribe admission standards.
• The Supreme Court cited All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726]* to emphasize the reluctance of courts to substitute the views of academic and expert bodies.
• The Supreme Court cited Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors [(2010) 8 SCC 372]* to show deference to expert committees in academic matters.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the integrity of the admission process for IITs. The Court emphasized that IITs are institutions of national importance and their admission criteria should be respected. The Court also noted that the criteria were designed to prevent the wastage of seats and to ensure that the admission process is fair and equitable. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the criteria had been in place for over five years and that it was uniformly applied to all candidates. The court also considered the fact that the IITs are governed by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. The court also noted that the High Court had erred in equating IITs with non-IIT institutions.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal considerations such as the statutory basis of IITs and the need to respect the decisions of expert academic bodies. While factual aspects like the timeline of events and Soutrik’s actions were considered, the legal framework and the need to uphold the integrity of the admission process were the dominant factors.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the eligibility criteria for JEE (Advanced) that restricts candidates who have already taken admission in an IIT from appearing again.
• The Court emphasized that IITs are institutions of national importance and their admission criteria should be respected.
• The Court distinguished between IITs and non-IIT institutions, stating that IITs have a special status due to their statutory basis and national importance.
• The decision reinforces the authority of academic institutions to set their own admission criteria, provided they are not arbitrary or discriminatory.
• Candidates who accept a seat in an IIT and do not withdraw or accept the seat at the admitting institute will be ineligible for JEE (Advanced) in subsequent years.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and directions of the Calcutta High Court and dismissed the writ petition of Soutrik Sarangi.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the eligibility criteria for JEE (Advanced), which restricts candidates who have already taken admission in an IIT from appearing again, is valid. This decision reinforces the principle that academic institutions have the authority to set their own admission criteria, provided they are not arbitrary or discriminatory. This case also clarifies that IITs have a special status due to their statutory basis and national importance, and that they can be treated differently from non-IIT institutions in terms of admission criteria. There is no change in previous positions of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur & Ors. vs. Soutrik Sarangi & Ors. upholds the validity of the IIT’s admission criteria that prevents students who have already accepted a seat in an IIT from re-appearing for the JEE (Advanced) exam. The Court emphasized the need to respect the autonomy of academic institutions and the importance of maintaining a fair and efficient admission process. This judgment reinforces the legal framework governing IITs and their authority to set admission standards.