Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 29, 2025 held that residence-based reservations are not permissible in Post Graduate medical courses, as all the residents of India are domiciled in the territory of the country.

A bench of Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S V N Bhatti said the very concept of a provincial or state domicile in India is a misconception, so providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in State quota is constitutionally invalid.

"In other words, providing for domicile or residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is constitutionally impermissible and cannot be done," the bench said, answering a reference made by a two -judge bench in a case related to Government Medical College and Hospital in Chandigarh.

The court emphasised there is only one domicile in India, which is referred to as domicile in the territory of India as given under Article 5.

"All Indians have only one domicile, which is the Domicile of India," the court said.

The bench said the benefit of ‘reservation’ in educational institutions including medical colleges to those who reside in a particular State can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses.

"But considering the importance of specialists doctors’ in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the bench said.

The court opined if such a reservation is permitted then it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who are being treated unequally simply for the reasons that they belong to a different State in the Union! This would be a violation of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution and would amount to a denial of equality before the law, it said.

"We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country gives us the right not only to choose our residence anywhere in India, but also gives us the right to carry on trade & business or a profession anywhere in India. It also gives us the right to seek admission in educational institutions across India," the bench said.

Having held that the residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical courses, the court said the State quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on the basis of merit in the All India examination.

The court relied upon Jagadish Saran Vs Union of India, (1980) Dr Pradeep Jain Vs Union of India, (1984) (both by three-judge bench) and Saurabh Chaudri Vs Union of India, (2003) (by Constitution bench).

It pointed out what has been held in Saurabh Chaudri is the same what was earlier held in Pradeep Jain, which is that residence-based reservation is not permissible in PG Medical Courses.

The bench pointed out the difference in the logic in making reservations on the basis of residence in UG level or MBBS level, and PG level (i.e. MD or MS) was explained in Jagadish Saran as well as Pradeep Jain. It was held that at PG level merit cannot be compromised, although residence- based reservation can be permissible to a certain degree in UG or MBBS course.

"Why residence-based reservation is impermissible is for the reason that such reservation runs counter to the idea of citizenship and equality under the Constitution," the bench said.

The court pointed out there is no doubt that Saurabh Chaudri though holds institutional preference or reservations to a reasonable extent permissible under the Constitution in PG courses, yet holds reservation in PG Medical Courses and other higher learning courses, on the basis of ‘residence’ in the State as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The bench noted 'domicile’ is primarily a legal concept for the purposes of determining what is the ‘personal law’ applicable to an individual.

"Therefore, even if an individual has no permanent residence or permanent home, he is still invested with a ‘domicile’ albeit by law or implication of law. Consequently, the concept of domicile acquires importance only when within a country there are different laws or more precisely different systems of law operating. But this is not the case in India. Each citizen of this country carries with him or her, one single domicile which is the ‘Domicile of India’. The concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system," the bench said.

The court pointed out permanent residence or residence have a meaning which is different from that of ‘domicile’.

"Article 15 speaks of ‘place of birth’, whereas Article 16 states that no citizen shall be discriminated, inter alia, on the ground of ‘residence’. State cannot grant reservation in public employment on the basis of residence in that State. The exception carved out under Clause 3 of Article 16, enables only the Parliament to make a law prescribing a requirement of residence for State employment," the bench said.

The court noted the reason as to why residence-based reservation is permissible for MBBS Course and not for higher courses i.e. starting from PG Course in medicine, is given in Jagadish Saran as well as Pradeep Jain.

In Pradeep Jain case, it was explained as to why residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, though to maintain a balance and for consideration of local needs such reservation may be permissible in MBBS courses.

The court pointed out, the reasoning given was that it is the State which spends money on creating the infrastructures and bears the expenses for running a medical college, and therefore some reservation at the basic level of a medical course i.e. MBBS can be permissible for the residents of that State. The classification between residents and others here can be justified as the classification seeks to maintain a balance as it considers local needs, backwardness of the area, the expense borne by the State in creating the infrastructure, etc, it noted.

The bench upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which declared that 32 PG seats earmarked as UT Chandigarh pool were wrongly filled on the basis of residence.

The court clarified its judgment would not affect the students who are studying and have passed out from Government Medical College, Chandigarh.