The Gujarat High Court has held that a student’s temporary stay outside Gujarat for two years due to her father’s transfer cannot be treated as a break while computing the ten-year continuous residence requirement for issuance of a Domicile Certificate.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a student whose application for a Gujarat Domicile Certificate was rejected on the ground that she had not continuously resided in the State for ten years. However, she had studied in Gujarat from nursery to Standard IV and then again from Standard VII to Standard XII after returning from Chennai.

A Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai, while directing issuance of the certificate, observed: “… except for a period of two years, the petitioner pursued her education in the State of Gujarat right from KG up to Standard XII in various schools. The petitioner had to reside and study at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, only for a period of two years on account of the transfer of her father, and it is only on account of the said transfer that the break in the continuous period of ten years came to be created.

The Bench further added: “… where a student goes outside the State for a few years to pursue studies and thereafter returns to the State of his/her permanent residence to pursue further education, the period during which the student remained outside the State of Gujarat cannot be excluded while computing the minimum continuous stay of ten years in the State of Gujarat”.

Advocate Abhishek Mehta appeared for the petitioner, while Assistant Government Pleader Angesh Panchal appeared for the State.

Background

The petitioner was born in Mumbai, but her father was posted in Gujarat in the same year. She began her schooling in Gujarat and continued there until Standard IV. Her father was then transferred to Chennai for two years, after which the family returned to Gujarat, and she resumed studies in Ahmedabad from Standard VII till completion of Standard XII.

After applying for courses, including medical admission through NEET, she sought a Domicile Certificate to claim local domicile benefits. The certificate was refused because she had not been a continuous resident of Gujarat for ten years.

The petitioner argued that she had spent 16 of her 18 years in Gujarat and that the two-year stay in Chennai was only because of her father’s transfer. She relied on Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari (2018), Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra (2024), and Aman Ramesh Panjiyar (2025), where similar issues concerning temporary absence from Gujarat had been considered.

The State opposed the plea, relying on the Government circular governing Domicile Certificates and contending that a continuous ten-year stay in Gujarat was mandatory.

Court’s Observations

The Court relied on Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari (2018), where a Coordinate Bench had examined the concept of domicile and held that domicile, while linked to residence, need not always mean uninterrupted physical presence.

The Coordinate Bench had observed: “The only interpretation that can be given to the term 'domicile' as contained in the rules is residence of a particular kind. This residence, however, need not be continuous but it must be indefinite not purely fleeting.”

The Court also noted the earlier conclusion that when rules do not prescribe additional requirements, the State cannot introduce them through circulars or administrative instructions.

The Court relied on the earlier finding that a student’s temporary movement outside Gujarat for studies, followed by return to the State of permanent residence for further education, cannot be used to exclude that period while computing ten years’ continuous stay.

The Coordinate Bench had held: “Merely because a student shifts himself outside the State of Gujarat for few years to pursue his studies in a school outside the State of Gujarat as a boarding student and returns to the State of his permanent residence and starts residing with his parents and also pursues further education (Standard-IX to XII), then in such circumstances the period for which he remained outside the State of Gujarat his studies as a boarding student cannot be excluded while computing 'minimum continuous stay of ten years in Gujarat State'.”

Applying the same principle, the Court found that the petitioner’s two-year stay in Chennai was not a voluntary abandonment of Gujarat residence, but a consequence of her father’s transfer.

The Court held that the State had not brought any distinguishable facts to justify a view different from the earlier decisions of the High Court. Since the petitioner had studied in Gujarat for most of her life and the only break arose from her father’s transfer, the rejection of her domicile application could not stand.

The Court accordingly concluded: “In the present case, the petitioner was compelled to reside outside the State of Gujarat for a period of two years solely on account of the transfer of her father. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions, it would not be reasonable to treat the said period as a break while computing the petitioner's continuous residence in the State of Gujarat for the purpose of the requirement of ten years.

Conclusion

The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the concerned authority to issue a Domicile Certificate to the petitioner immediately, preferably within one week, and in any case not later than July 30, 2026.

The petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Komal D/o Sansarchandra Chaube v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Abhishek M. Mehta and Chaitali Dave

Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader Angesh Panchal

Click here to read/download Judgment

Gujarat High CourtJustice Nirzar S. Desai

Muhib Makhdoomi

    Assistant Editor

    Muhib Makhdoomi is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum. A law graduate with a background in media and research, he covers the Supreme Court and key High Courts.