Supreme Court settles domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Courses: Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel & Ors. (2025) INSC 125 (29 January 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 125
Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Is it constitutional for a state to reserve Post Graduate (PG) medical seats based on a candidate’s residence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question. This judgment clarifies the rules for admissions to PG medical courses, particularly regarding domicile-based reservations. The three-judge bench delivered a unanimous verdict, settling the law on this matter.

Case Background

The case originated from the Union Territory of Chandigarh, which has only one medical college, the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh. On March 28, 2019, the college began its admission process for PG medical courses. The prospectus allocated 64 seats under the State Quota. These seats were divided into two categories: Institutional Preference (32 seats) for candidates who completed their MBBS from the same college, and UT Chandigarh Pool (32 seats) for candidates meeting specific residence criteria.

The UT Chandigarh Pool had three eligibility criteria: (i) studying for five years in Chandigarh, (ii) parents residing in Chandigarh for five years, or (iii) parents owning property in Chandigarh for five years. This effectively reserved all 64 state quota seats for either Chandigarh residents or those with institutional preference.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners challenged the prospectus in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arguing that the residence-based reservation violated Supreme Court precedents. The High Court agreed, declaring the residence-based reservation unconstitutional and ordering admissions based on NEET merit. The Medical College appealed to the Supreme Court, which initially stayed the High Court’s order. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court then referred the matter to a larger bench for final determination.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions and precedents. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16(3) allows Parliament to make laws regarding residence requirements for state employment. The court also examined the concept of ‘domicile’ and its relevance to Indian law.

The Court referred to previous judgments, including:

• Jagadish Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768: This case discussed the validity of institution-based reservations in PG medical courses, deeming them permissible to a reasonable extent.
• Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654: This case held that while institution-based reservations are allowed, residence-based reservations in PG medical seats are unconstitutional.
• Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146: A Constitution Bench judgment that affirmed the principles laid down in Pradeep Jain, stating that residence-based reservations in PG medical courses are impermissible.

The Court emphasized that while some residence-based reservations are acceptable for MBBS courses, the same is not true for PG courses, where merit should be the primary criterion.

Arguments

The petitioners before the High Court argued that the reservation policy in the prospectus was in direct conflict with Supreme Court decisions, specifically Jagadish Saran, Pradeep Jain, and Saurabh Chaudri. They contended that reserving all state quota seats based on residence or institutional preference was unconstitutional.

The appellants, on the other hand, relied on Saurabh Chaudri, arguing that it does not bar residence-based reservations under Article 15 of the Constitution. They contended that the judgment permits institutional preference and does not completely prohibit residence-based reservations.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Is providing domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota constitutionally invalid and impermissible?
2. If domicile/residence-based reservation is permissible, what should be the extent and manner of providing such reservation for “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota seats?
3. If domicile/residence-based reservation is impermissible, how should the State Quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, be filled up?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that residence-based reservations in PG medical courses are unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that merit should be the primary criterion for admissions to these courses.

The Court clarified that while institutional preference is permissible to a reasonable extent, reservations based on residence are not. The Court relied heavily on the principles laid down in Pradeep Jain and affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri.

The Court also clarified the concept of domicile, stating that all Indian citizens have a single domicile, which is the Domicile of India. The Court condemned the misuse of the term ‘domicile’ by state governments to mean ‘permanent residence’.

The Court quoted Pradeep Jain:

“It is axiomatic that talent is not the monopoly of the residents of any particular State; it is more or less evenly distributed and given proper opportunity and environment, everyone has a prospect of rising to the peak. What is necessary is equality of opportunity and that cannot be made dependent upon where a citizen resides.”

The Court also quoted Jagadish Saran:

“The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure at the highest scales of speciality where the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by selecting according to capability.”

The Court further quoted Pradeep Jain:

“We think it is dangerous to use a legal concept for conveying a sense different from that which is ordinarily associated with it as a result of legal usage over the years.”

The Court stated that the law laid down in Jagadish Saran and Pradeep Jain has been consistently followed by this Court, including in the Constitution Bench decision in Saurabh Chaudri.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with upholding the principles of equality and merit in higher education, particularly in specialized fields like medicine. The Court emphasized that talent is not limited to any particular region and that all citizens should have an equal opportunity to pursue advanced studies. The Court was also keen to ensure that the best medical professionals are trained, which is essential for the nation’s progress.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Residence-based reservations in PG medical courses are unconstitutional.
• Admissions to PG medical courses must be based primarily on merit, as determined by the All-India examination.
• Institutional preference is permissible to a reasonable extent.
• The concept of ‘domicile’ in India is singular, i.e., ‘Domicile of India,’ and state governments should not misuse the term.

Directions

The Court directed that the State quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, should be filled strictly on the basis of merit in the All-India examination. The Court also clarified that its judgment will not affect the students who have already been admitted and are undergoing their PG courses.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that residence-based reservations in PG medical courses are unconstitutional and impermissible. This judgment reaffirms the position established in Pradeep Jain and Saurabh Chaudri, thereby reinforcing the principle that merit should be the primary criterion for admissions to PG medical courses. This case further clarifies that the concept of domicile in India is singular, being the Domicile of India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel & Ors. definitively settles the issue of residence-based reservations in PG medical courses. The Court has unequivocally stated that such reservations are unconstitutional and that merit should be the primary factor in admissions to these courses. This decision reinforces the principle of equality and ensures that all eligible candidates have an equal opportunity to pursue higher education in medicine, irrespective of their place of residence.