Tamil Nadu Challenges Supreme Court Verdict on NEET PG Domicile Quota

With regard to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court against domicile-based reservations in postgraduate (PG) medical admissions, Tamil Nadu has announced plans to file a review petition so that its reservation policies and social justice can be kept intact. State Health Minister Ma Subramanian feared the adverse impact of the Apex Court's decision on the 69% reservation system of the state, in-service quota for government medical college admissions, and reservations for minorities in self-financing medical institutions.

Minister Subramanian pointed out that the judgment of the Supreme Court goes against the state's right to control the medical admission process. Today, the Central Government conducts counseling for 15% of the undergraduate medical seats and 50% of the postgraduate and super-specialty seats. He mentioned that Tamil Nadu had earlier obtained a quota for government doctors in super-specialty courses after a long legal fight. Unfilled seats due to a lack of candidates are generally surrendered to the Central Government.

The current order does not affect the admissions that were done in 2024, but its impact is expected to be high in the next academic year. The state government is consulting lawyers to go back to the old 50-50 seat-sharing model.

The Government Doctors Association has criticized the lack of a quota for local doctors, which may result in a workforce shortage in government hospitals. The senior government doctor felt that physicians might face language barriers when traveling from other states, which makes them incapable of effectively communicating with patients and possibly altering the treatment, especially for the economically disadvantaged.

The Supreme Court in the case ruled that domicile-based reservations for admissions into postgraduate medical courses on January 29, 2025, run in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality rights. The three-member bench by Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti clarified that residence-based reservations in PG medical courses run in contravention of Article 14. Such seats will have to be granted purely based on merit acquired in the NEET examination, clarified the court.

This ruling arose from a case involving the Government Medical College and Hospital, where 64 PG medical seats were reserved under the State quota. Petitions challenged this provision, arguing that it favored residents of Chandigarh or students who completed their MBBS at the same institution, thereby limiting opportunities for other candidates.

The Supreme Court relied upon the Constituent Assembly debates, where it is observed that residence should not be the qualification for seeking job or educational opportunities.

The court pointed out that though there are situations where residence-based qualifications are the requirements, the Parliament alone has the power to make laws prescribing such qualifications based on residence to achieve uniformity throughout India. More pertinent, however, is the fact that, in light of this decision, Tamil Nadu has filed a review petition to preserve its already established policies regarding reservations and protect its right to equitable access to medical education for its residents.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Pragati Sakhuja/MSM)