SUPREME COURT RULING ON DOMICILE-BASED RESERVATION FOR PG MEDICAL ADMISSIONS
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Others (2025), ruled that domicile-based reservation for Post-Graduate (PG) medical admissions is unconstitutional. This ruling came after the Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier struck down similar reservations.
Background of Domicile Quota
The domicile quota is a reservation system where states allocate specific PG medical seats for candidates who are permanent residents.
PG medical admissions follow a 50-50 system:
- 50% seats are filled through central counseling.
- 50% seats are managed by state counseling bodies, which often include domicile-based reservations.
Supreme Court’s Key Rulings
Violation of Right to Equality (Article 14)
- The Court ruled that restricting PG admissions based on domicile violates the fundamental right to equality.
- Indian citizens have the right to reside and practice their profession anywhere in the country.
- Domicile-based reservations create unfair barriers to professional mobility.
Emphasis on Merit-Based Admissions
- Admissions to PG medical courses should be based on merit through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).
- While institutional quotas may exist, domicile-based reservations within the state quota are unconstitutional.
No Retrospective Impact
- The decision will not affect admissions already granted under domicile-based reservations.
Clarification on Domicile vs. Residence
- The Court clarified that “domicile” refers to a person’s legal home, not just their current place of residence.
- Under Article 5 of the Constitution, all Indian citizens share a single national domicile, and state-specific domicile does not hold legal standing.
Historical Precedent
- The Court referred to the Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India (1984) case.
- In MBBS admissions, residence-based reservations were justified as states invest in medical education infrastructure.
- However, the same justification does not apply to PG courses, making domicile-based quotas unconstitutional.
Constitutional Provisions Related to Reservation
- Article 15 & Article 16 provide for reservations in education and public employment for underprivileged groups.
- These provisions do not explicitly include domicile-based reservations, though some states have interpreted them in that manner.
Pros and Cons of Domicile-Based Reservation in Education
Pros
Encourages Local Representation
- Ensures students from a particular state have better opportunities in local institutions.
- Helps local students access public-sector educational institutions.
Promotes Social and Economic Upliftment
- Acts as a form of affirmative action for disadvantaged communities.
- Helps local students pursue higher education, leading to economic growth in the region.
Boosts Regional Development
- Creates a skilled workforce that benefits the local economy.
- Supports regional growth and employment opportunities.
Cons
Violation of Fundamental Rights
- Restricts the freedom to study anywhere in the country, violating Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Movement).
Hampers National Integration
- Divides students along regional lines, reducing equal opportunities for all.
- Goes against the spirit of a unified education and employment system.
Affects Talent and Meritocracy
- Reduces competition and discourages academic excellence.
- May result in less competent professionals if admissions prioritize domicile over merit.
Creates Economic Inefficiency
- Can discourage private investment and innovation by limiting access to top talent.
- Does not address the real issues like poor education infrastructure and lack of coaching facilities.
Way Forward
Emphasize Merit-Based Admissions
- PG medical admissions should be strictly based on merit through NEET-PG.
- Regional preferences should not compromise the quality of medical professionals.
Temporary Support for Disadvantaged Students
- Instead of domicile quotas, governments should focus on scholarships, preparatory coaching, and financial aid for underprivileged students.
Strengthen Education Infrastructure
- Invest in better schools, teacher training, and skill development in backward states to improve competitiveness.
- Ensure rural students get access to quality education so they can compete nationally.
Legal Clarity on Reservation Policies
- A clear legal framework should differentiate between affirmative action for backward communities and domicile-based reservations.
- Policies must align with constitutional principles and focus on social and educational upliftment rather than regional preference.
Better Social Support Systems
- Address poverty, migration, and lack of resources so that students from all backgrounds can access higher education.
- Implement stronger anti-discrimination measures to ensure fair treatment of students across states.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of merit-based admissions and equal opportunities for all Indian citizens. While domicile-based reservations may provide short-term benefits to local students, they conflict with constitutional principles of equality and professional mobility. Instead, efforts should focus on improving education infrastructure, providing financial aid, and ensuring skill development to create a truly inclusive and competitive educational environment.
Mains Question:
- Critically analyze the Supreme Court’s ruling on domicile-based reservation in PG medical admissions and discuss its implications on meritocracy and regional representation in education. (150 WORDS)