Domicile-Based Reservation for PG Medical Courses: Supreme Court Refers Issue to Larger Bench (9 December 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 9 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1234

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a state reserve seats in postgraduate medical courses for students who are residents of that state? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this complex issue, which has significant implications for medical education and access across the country. This case examines the legality of domicile-based reservations, particularly in states with only one medical college. The Supreme Court, finding conflicting views in its previous judgments, has referred the matter to a larger bench for a conclusive decision. The judgment was authored by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar concurring.

Case Background

This case involves multiple appeals against a judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had struck down the domicile/residence-based reservation policy for admissions to Post Graduate (PG) Medical Courses at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh. The High Court had directed fresh admissions based solely on merit in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). Aggrieved by this decision, students who had gained admission under the domicile-based reservation, the Union Territory (UT) of Chandigarh, and the Medical College appealed to the Supreme Court.

The core issue revolves around the validity of a clause in the Medical College’s prospectus that provided for a “UT Chandigarh Pool.” This pool reserved seats for candidates who had studied in Chandigarh for five years, whose parents had resided in Chandigarh for five years, or whose parents owned property in Chandigarh for five years.

The appellants included students who had secured admission to various PG medical courses under the UT Chandigarh Pool, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh. The contesting respondents were the original petitioners before the High Court, who had challenged the domicile-based reservation policy.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana had previously dealt with a similar issue in the case of Dr. Chahat Bhatia v. Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and Ors., concerning institutional preference for PG medical admissions for the academic year 2018-19. In that case, the High Court had ruled that institutional preference should be calculated based on the seats available after deducting the All India Quota seats. However, the issue of domicile-based reservation was not directly addressed in that case.

In the current case, the High Court considered the challenge to the domicile/residence-based reservation in the prospectus for the academic year 2019-20. The High Court struck down the “UT Chandigarh Pool” clause, holding that it was in conflict with Supreme Court decisions that deprecated preference based on residence alone. The High Court directed that admissions should be based solely on merit in the NEET examination.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India.

• ✓ Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• ✓ Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

The Court also considered the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, specifically Section 10D, which mandates a uniform entrance examination (NEET) for all medical institutions. The Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, prescribed by the Medical Council of India, were also taken into account.

Arguments

The appellants, including the students who had gained admission, the UT of Chandigarh, and the Medical College, argued that the High Court had erred in striking down the domicile/residence-based reservation. They contended that:

• ✓ The Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India did not disapprove of domicile/residence-based reservation, and therefore it is not constitutionally impermissible.
• ✓ The criteria laid down by UT Chandigarh for the UT Pool were not arbitrary and did not violate the principle of equality.
• ✓ The High Court should not have set aside the admissions already made for the academic year 2019-20.
• ✓ The State Quota seats are to be filled up by the respective States by following their own qualifying criteria and guidelines.
• ✓ Many other states also have similar domicile/residence-based preferences for filling up State Quota seats.
• ✓ In the wake of the decision in Dr. Chahat Bhatia, the UT had to identify students for the remaining State Quota seats, which led to the criteria in Clause 2B of the prospectus.

The contesting respondents, who were the original writ petitioners, argued that:

• ✓ The High Court was correct in striking down the domicile/residence-based reservation, as it was in conflict with the principles laid down in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and other Supreme Court decisions.
• ✓ Admission to specialized courses should be based purely on merit, and domicile-based reservations violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
• ✓ There was no nexus between the criteria in Clause 2B of the prospectus and the objective of allotting State Quota seats.
• ✓ The issue of domicile-based reservation was already settled in Dr. Chahat Bhatia, where the High Court had observed that such practices have been repeatedly disapproved.

The Medical Council of India (MCI) submitted that:

• ✓ The 50% State Quota seats cannot be filled by imposing domicile/residential requirements, though institutional preference is permissible.
• ✓ Clause 2B of the prospectus was violative of Article 14 and contrary to judicial pronouncements.
• ✓ Admissions to PG Medical Courses were already completed for the academic year 2019-20 and should not be disturbed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following questions for consideration by a larger bench:

1. As to whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible?
2. (a) If the 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?
3. (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?
4. If the 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the previous judgments, particularly Saurabh Chaudri and Dr. Pradeep Jain. The court noted that while Dr. Pradeep Jain expressed disapproval of domicile-based reservation, Saurabh Chaudri did not explicitly rule it out. The court observed that the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri had relied upon the decision in D.P. Joshi, which had held that domicile/residence-based rules were not prohibited by Article 15(1).

The court also considered the practical implications of a blanket prohibition on domicile-based reservation, particularly in states with only one medical college. The court noted that such a prohibition could lead to all State Quota seats being filled by institutional preference alone or reverting to the All India Quota, which the court found difficult to accept.

The court emphasized that all admissions to PG Medical Courses are based on merit and the marks obtained in NEET. The court also noted that different States and Union Territories have different provisions for filling up State Quota seats, including domicile/residence-based preferences.

The court concluded that the issue of domicile/residence-based reservation required further examination by a larger bench to reconcile the conflicting views and provide an authoritative pronouncement.

The authorities were viewed as follows:

✓ D.P. Joshi v. State of M.P. [AIR 1955 SC 334]*: Relied upon to establish that domicile/residence is distinct from place of birth and that Article 15(1) does not prohibit domicile-based rules.

✓ State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon [(1975) 1 SCC 267]*: Cited to emphasize that reservation based solely on place of birth is invalid, but reservation for socially backward classes is permissible.

✓ Jagdish Saran v. Union of India [(1980) 2 SCC 768]*: Referred to as a case that discussed the desirability of merit-based admissions.

✓ Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 654]*: Cited as a case that expressed disapproval of domicile-based reservation but allowed for institutional preference.

✓ Yogesh Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(1990) 3 SCC 355]*: Cited to highlight the subtle distinction between domicile and residence.

✓ Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [(2003) 11 SCC 146]*: Extensively discussed; held that it did not disapprove of domicile-based reservation.

✓ Magan Mehrotra v. UOI [(2003) 11 SCC 186]*: Referred to as a case that held that only institutional preference was permissible, leading to the reference to the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri.

✓ Nikhil Himthani & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 237]*: Cited as a case where the court held that no preference could be given on the basis of domicile for the institutional quota of the State.

✓ Vishal Goyal & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2014) 11 SCC 456]*: Cited as a case where the court disapproved of a domicile-based definition that excluded candidates who had studied in the state.

✓ Ashish Ranjan v. UOI & Ors. [(2016) 11 SCC 225]*: Cited to show the time schedule for admissions to PG medical courses.

✓ Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [(2016) 7 SCC 353]*: Cited to show the background of Section 10D of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

✓ Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. State of Karnataka [2018 SCC online SC 324]*: Cited as a case where the court disapproved of a domicile-based definition that excluded candidates who had studied in the state.

✓ Satyabrata Sahoo & Ors. v. State of Orissa [(2012) 8 SCC 203]*: Cited to show that there can be no encroachment from one category to another.

✓ Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others [SLP(C) No. 7003 of 2017]*: Cited to show that institutional preference is permissible in PG medical courses, even with NEET.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench indicates a complex interplay of legal and practical considerations. The court was clearly grappling with the need to reconcile previous judgments, particularly the seemingly conflicting views in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Saurabh Chaudri. The court also recognized the practical challenges of implementing a blanket prohibition on domicile-based reservation, especially in states with limited medical colleges.

The court’s emphasis on merit as the basis for admission, as mandated by NEET, is evident. However, the court also acknowledged the need to address the issue of State Quota seats and the varying practices of different states in filling those seats. The court’s concern for ensuring that candidates from a particular state are available for service in that state after post-graduation also weighed in its mind.

The court’s reasoning process can be visualized as follows:

Final Order

The Supreme Court, after hearing all the parties, passed the following order:

1. The Court referred the matter to a larger bench to determine the constitutional validity of domicile/residence-based reservation in PG medical courses.
2. The Court requested the larger bench to consider all the issues framed by the Court.
3. The Court did not disturb the admissions already made for the academic year 2019-20, as an ad-interim stay was already in place.

Implications

The referral of this case to a larger bench has significant implications for medical education in India. The larger bench’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for the following:

• ✓ Medical Admissions: The ruling will clarify the permissible criteria for filling State Quota seats in PG medical courses.
• ✓ State Autonomy: The decision will determine the extent to which states can implement domicile-based preferences in medical admissions.
• ✓ Merit vs. Representation: The court’s ruling will balance the principle of merit-based admissions with the need for representation of candidates from different states.
• ✓ Medical Education System: The decision will impact the overall structure of medical education and the availability of doctors in various states.

The final decision of the larger bench will be crucial in shaping the future of medical admissions and medical education in India. It will provide clarity on the constitutional validity of domicile-based reservations and will ensure a uniform and fair admission process for all candidates.