Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1285

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. R. GAVAI, C.J.I., K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 11217-11269 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024) With Civil Appeal No. 11270 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 43112 of 2024) Civil Appeal No. 11271 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23421 of 2024) Writ Petition (C) No. 637 of 2024 Civil Appeal No of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 44682 of 2024) Writ Petition (C) No. 672 of 2024 Writ Petition (C) No. 661 of 2024
Decided on : 01-09-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. DVSS Somayajulu, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.B. Suresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Ms. M.b.ramya, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv. Ms. V Krithi Sahithya, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. P. Venkatraju, Adv. Ms. Neha Rai, Adv. Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Mr. Kumar Nikhil, Adv. Ms. M. Harshini, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Jude Rohit, Adv. Ms. J.vijetha, Adv. Ms. Nancy Mittal, Adv. Ms. Baby Devi Bonia, Adv. Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Aakash Saini, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. DVSS Somayajulu, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.b. Suresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Ms. M.b.ramya, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv. Ms. V Krithi Sahithya, Adv. Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.S, AOR Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Ms. Akansha, AOR Mr. Naman Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditiya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Anurag, AOR Miss Ritu Reniwal, AOR Mr. S. Sriram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Vivek Rajan D.b, Adv. Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Saaketh Kasibhatla, Adv. Mr. Kartik Brundavan, Adv. Mr. M. Dharun Lakshman, Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ishaan George, AOR Dr. Rukma George, Adv. Mr. Archit Jain, Adv. Mr. Ashhab Khan, Adv. Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Adv. Mr. K Sita Rama Rao, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Rohit Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Ms. Bhabna Das, AOR Mr. Abid Ali Beeran, Adv. Mr. Sriram P., AOR Mr. Neha Kumari, Adv. Mr. Nalukettil Nandhu S Nair, Adv. Ms. Maneesha Sunil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. Shaik Mohammad Haneef, Adv. Mr. Suneet Singh, Adv. Mr. Yasser Wali, Adv. Mr. Anshul Bedi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mishra, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Reservation – Presidential Order brought out under Article 371D of Constitution enabled State to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for people belonging to different parts of State in the matter of education.

Headnote:
Reservation – ‘Competent Authority Seats/Quota’ – Local Candidate – [Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017] – Presidential Order brought out under Article 371D of Constitution enabled State to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for people belonging to different parts of State in the matter of education – Pre-amended rule defining a local candidate was perfectly in order, which reasoning applies squarely to amended rule also – There was no warrant for a reading down when definition is clear, in consonance with Presidential Order and similar rules having been upheld by this Court as coming out from binding precedents – No reason to take a different view with respect to amended rule also; 15% having been conceded to All- India quota – Without a definition of what constitutes residence or at least without reference to a statute or rule prescribing issuance of a residence certificate, directions issued by High Court would only result in an anomalous situation, making reservation unworkable and open to a series of litigation – Appeals of State and University allowed, setting aside both impugned judgments in Writ Petitions filed by students. (Paras 13, 23 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Question arising in these batch of appeals is whether the wisdom of legislature in defining a ‘local candidate’ entitled to apply under ‘Competent Authority Seats/Quota’, by a subordinate legislation, in consonance with a Presidential Order issued under Article 371D of Constitution of India, can be interfered with and expanded by the High Court under Article 226?
Findings of Court:
In previous academic year on concession made by the Government before this Court, students who did not fall strictly under definition were granted admission to mitigate grievance of hardship alleged and argued. Admissions so made shall not be disturbed.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether the wisdom of the legislature in defining a ‘local candidate’ entitled to apply under the ‘Competent Authority Seats/Quota’, by a subordinate legislation, in consonance with a Presidential Order issued under Article 371D of the Constitution of India, can be interfered with and expanded by the High Court under Article 226, is the question arising in these batch of appeals.

3. The State of Telangana in their appeals allege that the expansion of the definition, on the subjective satisfaction of the High Court, would lead to frustrating the special provision under Article 371D, intended to confer a benefit to those local candidates in the State of Telangana who can be given preferential admission to the medical courses. The true test being not the claim of nativity by descent, but by their residence and their continued education within the State, culminating with the appearance in the qualifying examination within the State, establishing the real bonding and true integration into the local environment. This raises a valid presumption that they would continue working, after qualifying, in the locality, serving the people of the State. The respondents- students, however, urge that the definition of local candidate itself is gross and does not reckon the vagaries of life and employment of the parents, which takes the children away from the State, whose roots remain all the same within the State.

4. The State counters that the definition has been molded in such a manner as to not only benefit those people who studied and resided for a considerable period within the State; but also ensure that those students who come from the marginalized sections are included. Such persons are those who are born into families who do not have the capacity to send their children outside the State and the Country for availing better educational facilities or expert and focused training to appear for the competitive entrance examinations. Most likely these are the persons who would remain within the State and offer their services to those residing in the State, which has a dearth of qualified medical practitioners.

5. We heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel and Mr.A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants/State/University and Mr. P.B. Suresh, Mr. Raghenth Basant, Mr. Prakash Deu Naik, learned senior counsel and Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents/student-aspirants and Mr. S. Sriram, learned senior counsel appearing for the impleader.

6. Two separate Rules containing almost similar definitions were under challenge before the High Court. The first batch of Writ Petitions challenged the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017¹[hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules of 2017’], the judgment in which was passed on 29.08.2023. Closely following suit, the second batch of Writ Petitions challenging the amendments brought into the definition of ‘local candidates’ vide GOMS No.33 dated 19.07.2024 was also allowed on 05.09.2024. Both these judgments are in appeal before us. In the meanwhile, by way of an interim order, there were admissions made on the consent of the State as per the expanded definition ordered by the High Court, subject to the final result of the appeals before this Court.

7. We will first briefly notice the genesis and the history of the preferential admissions to the professional courses in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh and then after division, in the newly formed State of Telangana. Article 371D as it stood before the division referred to special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh for providing equitable opportunities and facilities to the people belonging to the State, both in the matters of public employment and education, as enabled by a Presidential Order. After division, the nominal