Domicile-Based Reservation Is Constitutionally Impermissible In PG Medical Courses: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that reservation in PG Courses based on ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has held that domicile/residence-based reservation is constitutionally impermissible in PG Medical courses.
The Court held that reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The admissions to PG Medical Courses at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh (GMCH) were under challenge.
A Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held, “So far as question no. 1, which is whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State quota is constitutionally invalid and impermissible is concerned, our answer is in the affirmative. Yes, it is constitutionally invalid. In other words, providing for domicile or residence-based reservation in PG Medical Courses is constitutionally impermissible and cannot be done. Now, since our answer to the first question is in the affirmative, we need not answer the next two questions i.e., 2(a) and 2(b). We will answer the third question towards the end of this judgment.”
ASG K.M. Nataraj, Sr. AAG Garima Prasad, AAG Prateek K. Chadha and Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, Saurabh Mishra, Garima Prasad, Vijay Hansaria, Rahul Mehra and Gaurav Sharma appeared for the parties.
Brief Facts
The prospectus for admissions issued by the college reserved all 64 seats under the State Quota for:
- Institutional Preference Pool (IP) for candidates who had completed MBBS from GMCH Chandigarh and
- UT Chandigarh Pool for candidates with a background in Chandigarh, including those who had studied in Chandigarh for five years, had parents residing in Chandigarh for five years or had immovable property in Chandigarh for five years.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that reserving all 64 State Quota seats for residents and institutional candidates was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The admissions granted under this policy were declared unconstitutional, and the High Court directed that seats be filled based on merit in the NEET Examination.
The High Court’s decision was challenged before the Supreme Court, leading to an interim stay Order. The matter was then referred to a larger bench for adjudication.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court pointed out the issue was already addressed by a Five Judge Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) wherein it was held that “residence-based or domicile-based reservation in PG Medical courses is impermissible and constitutionally invalid.”
The question in Saurabh Chaudri (supra) was the validity of institutional preference/reservation as well as reservation based on residence. The Five Judge Bench had to determine whether reservation made by way of institutional preference was ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution; but during hearing a larger issue viz. as to whether any reservation, be it on residence or institutional preference, is constitutionally permissible, was raised at the Bar.
It was answered in the affirmative for institutional preference and held that to be a reasonable classification permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the present case, the Court explained, “There is no doubt that Saurabh Chaudri though holds institutional preference or reservations to a reasonable extent permissible under the Constitution in PG courses, yet holds reservation in PG Medical Courses and other higher learning courses, on the basis of ‘residence’ in the State as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Consequently, the Court held, “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 AllIndia 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.”
Cause Title: Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 125)
Appearance:
ASG K.M. Nataraj; Sr. AAG Garima Prasad; AAG Prateek K. Chadha; Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, Saurabh Mishra, Garima Prasad, Vijay Hansaria, Rahul Mehra and Gaurav Sharma; Advocates Kumar Dushyant Singh, Rohit Sharma, Jatin Lalwani, Nikhil Purohit, Jay Rawat, Samar Bansal, Sana Jain, Arjun Chhibbar, Siddharth R. Gupta, Sunita Gupta, Shantanu Sharma, Aman Agrawal, Sakshi Banga, Aakash Dahiya, Aditya Dahiya, R N Mahlawat, Vikram Gulia, Devyani Bhatt, K.K.L. Gautam, Vaishali N., Madan S., R. Rani Chandra, Japneet Kaur, Preeti Sehrawat, Divyansh Singh, Marbiang Khongwir, Varun Chugh, Bhuvan Kapoor, et al; AOR Amit Agrawal, Mrigank Prabhakar, Chandra Prakash, Rakesh Dahiya, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Harsh Kaushik, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Pallavi Langar, K. Enatoli Sema, Limayinla Jamir, Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Siddharth Sangal, Prateek K. Chadha, V. N. Raghupathy, et al.
