Domicile-Based PG Medical Admissions Unconstitutional

• 03 Feb 2025

For Prelims: Supreme Court, Domicile quota, Right to Equality, National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, Article 5, Article 15 and Article 16,  Article 19  

For Mains: Educational Policies, Equality and Reservation, Impact of Reservation Policies on National Integration 

Source: TH 

Why in News?  

The Supreme Court (SC) of India in the case “Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and others, 2025”, declared domicile-based reservation for Post-Graduate (PG) medical admissions unconstitutional.  

• This decision came after appeals against a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that had already scrapped such reservations. 

Note: The domicile quota refers to a reservation system where states allocate a portion of PG medical seats to candidates who are residents of that state.  

• For PG medical seats, the Centre conducts counseling for 50% of the total intake, while the remaining 50% is filled by state counseling bodies. Within this 50%, states set aside a quota for domicile candidates. 

What Did the SC Rule on Domicile-Based PG Admission Reservation? 

• Violation of Equality: The Court emphasized that providing residence-based or domicile-based reservations for PG medical courses is constitutionally impermissible, as it creates inequality among students based on their state of residence.  
  • This is a violation of the Right to Equality (Article 14 of the Indian Constitution). 
  • As per the ruling, Indian citizens have the right to reside and practice their profession anywhere in the country.  
    • Restricting PG admissions based on state domicile creates unnecessary barriers to professional mobility. 
• Merit-Based Admissions: The Court ruled that PG medical admissions must be merit-based, determined by the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), with state quota seats, aside from institution-based reservations, must adhere to merit-based selection. 
• No Impact on Past Admissions: The ruling will not affect admissions that have already been granted based on domicile-based reservations. 
• Domicile vs. Residence: The Court clarified that "domicile" refers to a person's legal home, and not the place of residence, as commonly understood. 
  • Legally, there is only one domicile in India “ the India has only one domicile, the "Domicile of India," as defined under Article 5, and all Indians share this single domicile, and the concept of state-specific domicile is not valid under the Indian legal system. 
• Historical Precedent: The Bench also referred to the 1984 Dr. Pradeep Jain vs Union of India case, where the SC allowed residence-based reservation in MBBS courses.  
  • This was justified on the grounds that the state invests in infrastructure and running costs for medical colleges, making it reasonable to reserve some seats for local residents.  
  • However, this reasoning does not apply to PG medical courses, where such reservations are deemed unconstitutional.

Note: Article 15 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution allow for reservations in educational institutions and public services for backward classes or underprivileged groups. 

• While these articles do not explicitly mention domicile, they permit reservations for socially and economically backward classes, which some states interpret as including local residents. 

What are the Pros and Cons of Domicile-Based Reservation in Education? 

• Pros:   
  • Local Opportunities: Ensures that local students receive adequate representation and opportunities in educational institutions, especially in public sector institutions.  
    • Acts as a form of affirmative action for disadvantaged communities. 
  • Economic Empowerment: Helps improve the social and economic status of local communities by providing them with better access to higher education. 
  • Boost to Local Development: Reservation laws can contribute to creating an educated workforce that benefits the local economy and supports regional development. 
• Cons:  
  • Violation of Fundamental Rights: It may infringe upon the right to move freely and seek education anywhere in the country, as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. 
  • Impact on National Integration: Domicile-based quotas can divide the nation and hinder the idea of a unified educational and professional space, where all citizens have equal opportunities. 
  • Economic Inefficiency: These laws may harm the private sector by restricting access to top talent, hindering innovation, and discouraging investment. 
  • Addressing Root Causes: These laws overlook critical issues like inadequate education infrastructure, insufficient guidance for exams like NEET and Joint Entrance Examination, and a mismatch between academic curricula and industry skill requirements. 

Way Forward 

• Merit-Based Admissions: Emphasizing merit-based admissions, especially at the postgraduate level, is crucial for promoting skills and qualifications over regional backgrounds to ensure fair competition. 
  • A temporary support system for backward communities is necessary, but the long-term goal should be their integration into the mainstream education system without relying on regional quotas. 
• Enhance Quality of Education: Invest in infrastructure, teacher training, and skill development in rural and backward areas to enhance local students' competitiveness. 
• Strengthen Support Systems: Social support, including initiatives to address poverty and migration, must be targeted more effectively to ensure that vulnerable groups can access higher education and employment opportunities nationwide. 

Legal Insights: All Indians only have One Domicile  

https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/en 

Drishti Mains Question: 

Evaluate the constitutional and legal challenges associated with domicile-based reservation in education?