The three-judge bench ruled that such reservations are impermissible for PG medical courses, and that admissions must be based solely on merit. The ruling will not affect current students or those who have already graduated.
Published Jan 29, 2025 | 7:44 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 03, 2025 | 3:19 PM
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, 29 January ruled that domicile-based reservations for postgraduate (PG) medical admissions are unconstitutional, as they violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, held that such reservations are impermissible for PG medical courses, emphasising that admissions must be based solely on merit through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).
The court clarified that the ruling would not affect students currently enrolled in PG medical courses or those who have already graduated under the domicile-based reservation system.
However, going forward, state quotas for PG medical seats cannot be allocated based on residence. The bench reiterated the principles established in previous judgments, such as Dr Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003), which had similarly disallowed domicile-based reservations in PG medical courses, stating, “We are all domiciles in the territory of India. There is nothing like a provincial or state domicile. There is only one domicile. We are all residents of India.”
The court further emphasised that while residence-based reservations may be permissible to a limited extent in undergraduate (MBBS) courses, they are unacceptable in PG medical courses due to the need for highly specialised doctors.
The court was hearing a case from the Union Territory of Chandigarh, where admission to postgraduate (PG) medical courses at the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) was challenged. The controversy centered around the domicile-based reservation policy, which allocated all 64 PG seats under the state quota exclusively to either:
This policy effectively reserved all state quota seats for local candidates, prompting a legal challenge on the grounds of violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the reservation was unconstitutional as it discriminated against candidates from other states despite the national merit-based ranking system through NEET-PG.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier ruled against the domicile-based reservations, declaring them unconstitutional and directing that the seats be filled based on merit in the NEET-PG exam. This ruling was then challenged in the Supreme Court of India, which upheld the High Court’s decision.
The ruling has significant implications for state governments, particularly those that have historically invested heavily in medical education infrastructure. It raises concerns about states’ autonomy in managing medical education, as health is a state subject under the Constitution. State health administrators argue that while they continue to bear the financial burden of running medical colleges, they now have reduced control over admissions. This may impact states’ willingness to expand medical education infrastructure in the future.
It is important to understand the distinction between State Quota and Domicile Quota in NEET PG admissions.
State quota refers to the allocation of 50 percent of PG medical seats to candidates who have completed their MBBS in a particular state. This ensures that students who pursued undergraduate medical education in a state have a higher chance of securing a PG seat there.
Domicile quota, on the other hand, is reserved for candidates who are permanent residents of a state, regardless of where they completed their MBBS. Some states also extend domicile-based reservations to candidates who studied in other states but are domiciled in the concerned state.
Some states attempted to include domicile-based reservations within the state Quota, effectively restricting seats based on residence.
The Supreme Court has ruled that domicile-based reservations within the state quota are unconstitutional. However, the court has not struck down the entire state quota system.
The judgment clarifies that state quota remains intact, but seats previously allocated based on domicile must now be filled purely on merit.
For example, if a student belongs to Karnataka but completed MBBS in Telangana, they were previously eligible for both:
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the domicile-based reservation has been removed, meaning candidates can no longer claim residency-based benefits in states where they did not complete MBBS.
The ruling does not affect institutional preference quotas or university quotas, which allow medical colleges to reserve seats for their own graduates. State counseling processes will continue as before, except for the removal of domicile-based quotas.
“Having made the above determination that residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical courses, 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. Thus, out of 64 seats which were to be filled by the State in its quota, 32 could have been filled on the basis of institutional preference, and these are valid. But the other 32 seats earmarked as U.T. Chandigarh pool were wrongly filled on the basis of residence, and we uphold the findings of the High Court on this crucial aspect,” the judgment stated.
The ruling is expected to have some implications for South Indian states, which have a substantial number of PG medical seats. Karnataka, with the highest number of PG medical seats at 6,419, will likely see a major shift in admission patterns. Similarly, Tamil Nadu, which has 4,649 seats, Telangana with 3,142 seats, Andhra Pradesh with 3,416 seats, and Kerala with 1,715 seats will also be affected.
Under the current NEET PG system, 50 percent of seats are allocated under the All India Quota (AIQ), while the remaining 50 percent are reserved for state and domicile candidates.
With the Supreme Court’s decision, the state quota seats will now have to be filled purely based on merit, without any domicile-based preferences.
The verdict raises critical questions about states’ autonomy in healthcare, particularly since health is a state subject under the Indian Constitution. Under the Seventh Schedule, states hold primary responsibility for managing and providing healthcare services, including public health and sanitation, hospitals, and dispensaries. Medical colleges play a crucial role in sustaining the state’s health infrastructure.
South Indian states, which have historically invested heavily in medical education infrastructure, may find their financial and administrative autonomy challenged by this ruling.
Experts point out that this ruling could create a paradoxical situation where states continue to bear the financial burden of medical education while losing control over admission policies. This might affect states’ willingness to expand medical education infrastructure or maintain current spending levels.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
