Supreme Court Strikes Down Domicile-Based Reservation for PG Medical Courses
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that providing domicile or residence-based reservation for admissions to postgraduate (PG) medical courses within the State Quota is unconstitutional, as it violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The ruling came in the case of Tanvi Behl v. Shreya Goyal, as reported by Bar and Bench.
A Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti emphasized that merit alone should determine admissions to PG medical courses.
“We are all domiciled in India, and there is no provincial domicile, etc.… This gives us a right to pursue trade across India. The benefit of reservation in education to those who reside in certain areas can be given only in MBBS in some cases. But reservation at a higher level on the basis of residence is violative of Article 14,” the Court ruled, according to Bar and Bench.
However, the Court clarified that the judgment will not affect reservations already granted under the residence-based category.
The ruling stemmed from a 2019 reference by a two-judge Bench, which had sought clarity on the constitutional validity of domicile-based reservations for PG medical courses. The Court addressed three key questions
The case arose from appeals challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that struck down domicile-based reservation provisions in the admission prospectus of Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh.
Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing private respondents, argued that domicile-based reservation is unconstitutional—a position that the Court ultimately upheld.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that postgraduate medical admissions must be based on merit rather than state-based residence criteria.
Join JK Updates WhatsApp Channel 👈
1104 Post: RRC, North Eastern Railway Recruitment 2025
