Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Dr. Tanvi Behl – Appellant
Versus
Shrey Goel & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.9290 Of 2019, Civil Appeal No.9291 Of 2019 And Writ Petition (C) No.1183 Of 2020
Decided On : 29-01-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court has declared that domicile or residence-based reservation in PG Medical Courses within a State is unconstitutional and violates the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution (!) (!) .
The primary issue addressed is whether such residence-based reservations are legally permissible. The court's definitive stance is that they are not, and the practice of reserving seats based on residence or domicile is constitutionally invalid (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that merit, as determined by a national-level examination (NEET), must be the basis for admissions to PG Medical Courses. Residence-based reservations undermine equal opportunity and are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality (!) (!) .
The concept of domicile in Indian law is clarified to be a single, national concept—‘domicile in India’—and does not vary by State. The idea of a regional or State domicile is a misconception; all citizens are considered to have only one domicile, which is the domicile of India (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that residence or permanent residence is different from domicile, and the latter is a legal concept that signifies the ‘place of living’ or ‘permanent residence’ in a legal sense, which in India is uniformly ‘India’ (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that the use of ‘domicile’ terminology by State authorities often reflects a misconception, as the legal system recognizes only one domicile for each citizen—India-wide—regardless of residence within specific States (!) (!) .
The Court noted that residence-based reservations are permissible at the undergraduate (MBBS) level under certain conditions, primarily because of the State's expenditure and infrastructural investments. However, at the PG level, merit must be the sole criterion, and residence cannot be used as a basis for reservation (!) (!) .
The Court observed that allowing residence-based reservations at the PG level would violate the fundamental rights to equality and equal protection under the law, as it would unjustly discriminate against students from other States who have achieved merit-based ranks (!) .
The Court clarified that reservations already granted on the basis of residence or domicile will not be disturbed, especially for students who are currently undergoing or have completed their PG courses, to maintain fairness and equity (!) .
The overall ruling reinforces that the reservation system must align with the constitutional principles of equality, merit, and non-discrimination, and that residence or domicile cannot be a criterion for PG Medical admissions (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chandigarh medical college admissions (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. high court's findings (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. merit must prevail (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. appeal disposed (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
1. The question before this Court is whether residence-based reservation in Post Graduate (PG) Medical Courses by a State is constitutionally valid? On this the precise questions formulated by the Division Bench of this Court, which have now come up for determination before this Court, are as follows:
2. (a) If answer to the first question is in the negative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to "PG Medical Courses" is permissible, what should be the extent and manner of providing such domicile/residence- based reservation for admission to "PG Medical Courses" within the State Quota seats?
2.(b) Again, if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to "PG Medical Courses" is permissible, considering that all the admissions are to be based on the merit and rank obtained in NEET, what should be the modality of providing such domicile/residence-based reservation in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College?
3. If answer to the first question is in the affirmative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to "PG Medical Courses" is impermissible, as to how the State Quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, are to be filled up?
2. Before we come to answer these questions, we must state the facts first in order to get a perspective of the case before us. The case is from the Union Territory of Chandigarh which has just one Medical College called ‘The Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Medical College’). On 28.03.2019, the process of admissions to PG Medical Course in the said Medical College had started. The Medical College had 64 PG Medical seats in its State Quota and the relevant clause of the prospectus, which was challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, distributed these seats as follows:
| Category | Total no. of seats | Reserved (SC) 15% | General | |
| 1. | Institutional Preference Pool (IP) | 32 | 5 | 27 |
| 2. | UT, Chandigarh Pool | 32 | 5 | 27 |
| Total | 64 | 10 | 54 |
B. UT Chandigarh Pool: Candidate who fulfil eligibility criteria as below:
This category will include candidates with background of Chandigarh. To be eligible for this category candidate should fulfil any of the following criteria:
i. Studied for a period of 5 years in the Union Territory of Chandigarh at any time prior to the last date of the submission of the application.
ii. Candidates whose parents have resided in Union Territory of Chandigarh for a period of at least 5 years at any time prior to the last date of the submission of the application either in pursuit of a profession or holding a job.
iii. Children of persons who have held/hold immovable property in Union Territory of Chandigarh for a period of five years at any time prior to the last date of the submission of 11 the application. The property should be in the name of the parents or the candidate himself/herself.
Important Note:
a) To be eligible for UT Chandig
Domicile/residence-based reservation in PG Medical Courses is unconstitutional, violating the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Reservation of postgraduate medical seats based on domicile is constitutional, supporting local education while respecting equality principles.
Legitimate classification based on residency for admission into medical programs is constitutional, ensuring local residents benefit while maintaining educational standards contrary to claims of disc....
The court declared rules creating residency-based reservation for medical admissions unconstitutional as they violate Article 14, ensuring equality before law prevails in educational opportunities.
The court upheld residency-based admission criteria for medical college, affirming that such classification is rational and serves state interests, thus not violating constitutional provisions.
Domicile restrictions for admissions in minority institutions violate the equality clause under Article 14, mandating that PG medical course admissions be based on merit rather than residence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
