Telangana HC dismisses CAT aspirant’s plea against IIM Mumbai admissions

Court says no violation of rights as candidate with 99.52 percentile in CAT 2025 fails to meet sectional cut-off set by IIM Mumbai.

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the admission process of IIM Mumbai for its 2026–28 MBA programme, holding that no violation of legal rights had been established.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or illegality in the selection process.

The court noted that the petitioner attempted to treat a competitive admission procedure as a matter of personal entitlement based on overall score, while overlooking mandatory sectional cut-offs.

Petitioner’s claims

The petitioner, a 24-year-old from Gundla Pochampally near Hyderabad, had secured an overall percentile of 99.52 in CAT 2025. He approached the court after not being shortlisted for the interview stage, arguing that his high score should have ensured selection and alleging a lack of clarity from the institute despite repeated emails.

In its submission, IIM Mumbai stated that clearing minimum thresholds does not guarantee progression to the next stage. Owing to a large number of applicants, the institute had raised the sectional cut-off for Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning (DI&LR) to the 93.50th percentile.

The petitioner, who scored 92.87 percentile in that section, did not meet the revised requirement.

Institute’s stand

The institute further clarified that candidates cited by the petitioner had met all sectional criteria, making allegations of discrimination untenable. It maintained that the selection process was based on objective and uniformly applied standards.

Court’s observations

Emphasising the autonomy of academic institutions, the court held that admission criteria fall within the domain of expert bodies and should not be interfered with unless proven mala fide or unlawful.

It also observed that institutions are not obligated to respond individually to every unsuccessful applicant in large-scale selection processes.

Finding the procedure fair, transparent and uniformly applied, the court upheld the institute’s admission policy and dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had no enforceable right to claim a place in the interview process.