Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti has held that domicile-based reservations in PG medical seats are unconstitutional as they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India,1950 (COI).  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and others (2025). 
• The bench held that State quota seats must be filled solely on the basis of NEET merit, reaffirming previous judgments.  
• The ruling will not affect students already admitted under domicile-based reservations. 

What was the Background of Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and others Case? 

• The case originated from the Union Territory of Chandigarh, involving its sole medical institution - Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh. 
• The medical college had a total of 64 PG Medical seats under State Quota. 
• These 64 seats were divided equally - 32 seats for institutional preference and 32 seats for UT Chandigarh residents. 
• For the UT Chandigarh Pool, candidates needed to fulfill one of three criteria: 5 years of study in Chandigarh, parents' 5-year residence, or family's 5-year property ownership. 
• The admission process for these PG Medical seats commenced on March 28, 2019. 
• The prospectus contained specific provisions for reserving seats based on residence/domicile criteria. 
• Multiple petitions challenged these residence-based reservation provisions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
• The High Court struck down the residence-based reservation as unconstitutional. 
• Appeals were filed against the High Court's judgment in the Supreme Court. 
• The matter was referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court for determination of constitutional validity. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court declared that India recognizes only one domicile - the domicile of India, rejecting the concept of state-wise domicile. 
• The Court distinguished between 'domicile' and 'residence', noting that states often incorrectly use these terms interchangeably. 
• The Court held that while Article 15 doesn't explicitly prohibit residence-based discrimination, such reservations must pass the test of reasonable classification under Article 14. 
• The Court recognized that residence-based reservation may be permissible to some extent in MBBS courses due to state investment and local needs. 
• For PG courses, the Court emphasized that merit must be the primary criterion for selection. 
• The Court held that national interest demands selection of the best talent at higher levels of medical education. 
• The Court affirmed that institutional preference reservation is constitutionally valid to a reasonable extent. 
• The Court declared that residence-based reservation in PG medical courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 
• The Court emphasized that such reservations create artificial barriers between states, contrary to national unity. 
• The Court held that state quota seats must be filled strictly based on merit in the NEET examination. 
• The Court clarified that its judgment would not affect students who have already been admitted or completed their courses under the residence category. 

 What are Constitutional Provisions? 

• Article 14 - Right to Equality 
  • The State shall not deny equality before law or equal protection of laws. 
  • Forms the primary basis for striking down residence-based reservations. 
  • All other equality provisions (Articles 15-18) are extensions of Article 14. 
•  Article 15 - Prohibition of Discrimination 
  • Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. 
  • Does not explicitly mention "residence" as a prohibited ground. 
  • Contains enabling provisions (Clauses 4,5,6) for reservations for backward classes and EWS. 
•  Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women and children 
  • Article 16 - Equality in Public Employment 
  • Explicitly prohibits discrimination on grounds of residence in public employment. 
  • Only Parliament can make laws requiring residence for state employment (Article 16(3)). 
  • Shows constitutional intent against residence-based discrimination. 
•  Article 5 - Citizenship Provisions 
  • Refers only to "domicile in the territory of India". 
  • Establishes concept of single Indian domicile. 
  • No provision for state-wise domicile. 
•  Constitutional Structure 
  • India has one citizenship. 
  • Single unified legal system. 
  • Supreme Court at apex of single judicial hierarchy. 
  • State laws operate within unified Indian legal system. 
•  Fundamental Rights 
  • Right to move freely throughout India. 
  • Right to reside and settle in any part of India. 
  • Right to practice profession anywhere in India. 
  • Right to equal protection throughout territory of India. 
•  Distribution of Powers 
  • States can make laws on subjects in State List and Concurrent List. 
  • But laws must operate within the framework of fundamental rights. 
  • Cannot create barriers based on residence. 

Why the Constitution Prohibits Reservation Based on Domicile? 

• Constitutional Unity: 
  • India follows a single citizenship concept under the Constitution. 
  • There is only one domicile recognized - "domicile in the territory of India". 
  • This promotes national unity and prevents state-wise fragmentation. 
•  Fundamental Rights Framework: 
  • Citizens have the right to move freely throughout India. 
  • They have the right to reside and settle in any part of the country. 
  • The right to practice profession or carry on occupation in any part of India is guaranteed. 
  • These rights cannot be restricted based on domicile or residence. 
•  Merit and National Interest: 
  • Talent is not the monopoly of residents of any particular State. 
  • National development requires selection of best available talent. 
  • Domicile-based restrictions create artificial barriers to merit. 
  • Such restrictions can harm national progress, especially in specialized fields. 
•  Equal Protection: 
  • Article 14 guarantees equal protection of laws to all citizens. 
  • Discriminating between citizens based on domicile creates unreasonable classification. 
  • Such discrimination undermines the constitutional vision of India as one nation. 
  • It violates the principle of equality before law. 

What are the Landmark Cases Referred? 

• Jagadish Saran v. Union of India (1980): 
  • The Court held that institutional-based reservation in PG Medical Courses is constitutionally valid and permissible to a reasonable extent as it creates a reasonable classification with a nexus to the objective. 
  • The Court emphasized that at higher levels of education (PhD, MD), where international measures of talent are applied, losing one great scientist or technologist is a national loss. 
  • The Court observed that merit must be the primary criterion at higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment, as relaxing standards could pose national risks. 
  • The Court noted that while reservation may be acceptable at lower levels of education, at higher specialties like PG courses, the best skill and talent must be selected based on capability. 
•  Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984): 
  • The Court directly addressed residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses and declared it impermissible and violative of Article 14. 
  • The Court established that India recognizes only one domicile - "domicile in the territory of India" - and rejected the concept of state-wise domicile. 
  • The Court held that talent is not the monopoly of residents of any particular state and equal opportunity cannot be made dependent upon where a citizen resides. 
  • The Court warned against using domicile requirements in educational institutions, particularly medical colleges, as it could threaten national unity. 
  • The Court distinguished between UG and PG medical courses, allowing some residence-based reservation in MBBS courses while prohibiting it in PG courses. 
•  Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003): 
  • The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the principles laid down in Pradeep Jain and held that residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses is constitutionally impermissible. 
  • The Court upheld institutional preference to a reasonable extent while maintaining that residence cannot be a basis for reservation in higher medical education. 
  • The Court emphasized the importance of merit-based selection in specialized medical education for national development. 
  • The Court followed the reasoning in Magan Mehrotra's case, which had relied on Pradeep Jain, establishing that apart from institutional preferences, no other preferences including residence-based reservation are envisaged in the Constitution.