The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the admission process of IIM Mumbai for its 2026-28 MBA programme. Delivering the judgment recently, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka ruled that the petitioner failed to prove any violation of his legal rights.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a 24-year-old resident of Gundla Pochampally near Hyderabad, secured an overall percentile of 99.52 in CAT-2025. After being excluded from the interview stage, he moved the court contending that his high scores should have entitled him to an interview call. He alleged that the authorities were arbitrary in their selection and questioned why the institute failed to respond to his emails seeking clarification.
IIM Mumbai's Response
In its response, IIM Mumbai clarified that merely clearing the minimum threshold did not guarantee a spot in the next stage of the selection process. The institute explained that due to the high volume of applications, it raised the sectional cut-off for the Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning (DI&LR) section to 93.50 percentile. The petitioner secured 92.87 percentile in that section, falling short of the required benchmark. The institute also stated that other candidates the petitioner compared himself to had cleared the revised sectional cut-offs, making his claims of discrimination factually incorrect.
Court's Observations
The court observed that academic bodies have the exclusive authority to fix admission criteria, and courts should not interfere with these standards unless they are proven to be mala fide or illegal. It noted that large-scale admission processes do not place a legal obligation on institutions to engage in individual correspondence with every unsuccessful candidate. The court added that the institute's decision was based on objective criteria applied uniformly to all applicants, ensuring a fair and transparent process.
Verdict
Finding the selection process free from arbitrariness, the court upheld the institute's policy and dismissed the petition, confirming that the petitioner had no enforceable right to demand a seat in the interview process.
