SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE MEDICAL COURSES SHALL NOT BE BASED ON DOMICILE-BASED RESERVATIONS

A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti recently held in the judgement dated 29.01.2025 in the matter of Dr.Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019 that state-quota based reservations in PG medical seats are unconstitutional as they are violative of Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India.

FACTS

The Government Medical College and Hospital,Chandigarh began the process of admissions for its PG medical seats.The prospectus of the College stated that 64 seats from the PG medical course were allotted in its State Quota and this clause was challenged in a Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Upon perusal of the clauses,it became clear that the 64 seats falling under the State Quota were bifurcated in such a manner that 50% of such seats were reserved for the residents of the Union Territory of Chandigarh while the other 50% of the seats were reserved for students who have completed their MBBS course from the same College as a result of institutional preference. The Petitioners challenged these clauses as they were directly in conflict with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court such as Jagadish Saran v. Union of India (1980), Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003).  The Hon’ble High Court, upon perusal, came to the conclusion that the State Quota provided by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh in accordance with the principle of domicile/residence was untenable in the eyes of law as already decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Court ruled that the principle was unconstitutional and the eligibility criteria which was stated in the prospectus for being a “resident of Chandigarh” which included conditions such as wards of parents who held property for any period of 5 years in Chandigarh as it was not connected to the reservation for PG medical seats. The Court also held that these clauses were invalid and unconstitutional, and directed that the Medical College should fill these seats on the basis of the ranks secured under the NEET

(National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) PG examination. On being aggrieved, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the Division Bench upon framing questions of law, referred this matter to a larger Bench.

ISSUES 

1. Whether domicile-based reservation in Post Graduate (PG) Medical Courses by a State is constitutionally valid?
2. If domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Courses can be permitted and are constitutionally valid, then what is the extent and manner in which such reservations should be ensured by Institutions within the State Quota?
3. If domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Courses can be permitted and are constitutionally valid, then what should be the mode in which such reservation is provided in case a State/UT has only one Medical College?
4. If domicile-based reservation cannot be permitted in PG Medical Courses, then how are 50% of the seats belonging to the State Quota, excluding the seats of institutional preference,to be filled?

DECISION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon examination of the facts on record, held that domicile-based reservation in admissions for PG Medical Courses are constitutionally invalid and is wrong under the law. The Supreme Court further perused the judgments mentioned above which dealt with the questions of domicile and institution-based reservation in Medical Colleges. The judgements followed a similar line of reasoning wherein it was held while institution-based reservation was permissible to the extent that it had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved for such admissions. However, domicile-based reservations were not permissible for PG Medical Courses and it was also considered to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Jagadish Saran and Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) judgements explained that while residence-based reservation is permissible on the basis of a reasonable classification for Under Graduate (UG) Medical Courses due to local needs such as expenses borne by the State on facilities, the same cannot be held for PG Courses as they demand a higher level of merit and that such reservation also runs counter to the principle of equality propagated under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court, while interpreting the legal concept of “domicile” further held that the state of India recognizes only one domicile i.e. the domicile of India under Article 5 (Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution) of the Constitution while rejecting the concept of regional or provincial based domicile.

The Hon’ble Court also explained that Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) the Constitution does not prohibit residence-based discrimination, however it has to be based on a reasonable classification. On the basis of these findings, it was held by the Court that 50 % of the allotted seats under the State Quota i.e. 32 seats could be filled on the basis of institutional preference while the other 32 seats which were reserved for residents of Chandigarh were considered as invalid, thus upholding the decision of the High Court. However, it was declared that residence-based reservation shall not be disallowed for students who have already joined the PG courses or have passed out. Therefore, this present Appeal was disposed of by the Hon’ble Court.

CONCLUSION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court determined that residence/domicile-based reservations shall be impermissible in the case of Post Graduate Medical courses as it requires a higher level of merit compared to UG courses, and admissions to PG courses have to be based on marks obtained in the NEET examination.

PARVATI ARUN

INTERN

INDIAN LAWYER AND ALLIED SERVICES