In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that state-imposed domicile-based reservations in postgraduate (PG) medical admissions violate the constitutional principle of equality. The judgment affirms that admissions under the state quota should be purely on merit as determined by the National Eligible Entrance Test (NEET).
Important constitutional principles
The court's decision was based on two fundamental constitutional rights:
Residence-based reservations violate the principle of equality among citizens.
Declared such restrictions at the PG level unconstitutional.
Emphasized the right of citizens to live anywhere in India.
Protected the freedom to practice professions in the states.
Guaranteed access to educational institutions across the country
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sidhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti unanimously held that such residence-based reservations are against Article 14 of the Constitution. This judgment emphasizes that there is no specific provincial or state domicile, as all citizens under the law share the same national domicile. The bench further highlighted Article 19, which gives every citizen the right to live, work and study anywhere in India.
Implementation framework
The court laid down separate guidelines for different levels of education:
Undergraduate Level (MBBS)
Some reservation on the basis of domicile is permissible.
Existing policies may continue for undergraduate programs.
Post Graduate Level
Complete abolition of domicile-based reservations
Admissions are solely determined by the NEET merit score.
Focus on skills and expertise.
Admitting that limited domicile-based reservations may be acceptable at the undergraduate (MBBS) level, the court clarified that applying such policies to PG medical programs—where skills and expertise are paramount—is unconstitutional. . Justice Dhulia asserted, "Given the critical need for specialist doctors, any reservation on the basis of accommodation at the PG level violates Article 14."
To ensure smooth implementation, the court provided specific protections:
Current students continue under previous policies.
Only future admissions fall under new guidelines.
Context:
This decision comes from several petitions filed related to admissions to PG medical courses in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh. The court clarified that the decision will not affect the currently enrolled students or those graduating under domicile-based quota.
Earlier, a two-judge bench had referred the matter to a larger bench because of its importance, especially in states where medical facilities are limited. With this judgment, a three-judge bench has provided definitive clarity, ensuring that admissions to PG Medical remain strictly on the basis of merit, free from state-imposed domicile conditions. Reference:
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Muhammad Faisal/MSM)