The Supreme Court has ruled that domicile-based reservations for postgraduate (PG) medical courses under the State Quota are unconstitutional, declaring that such provisions violate the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The verdict was delivered in the case Tanvi Behl v. Shreya Goyal by a Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti. The Court emphasized that admissions to PG medical courses should be based solely on merit.
“We are all domiciled in India, and there is no concept of provincial domicile. The right to pursue trade or profession across the country must be upheld. While limited domicile-based reservations may apply to MBBS admissions, extending them to postgraduate courses contravenes Article 14,” the judgment stated.
However, the Court clarified that the ruling would not affect reservations already granted under the residence-based category.
The decision stemmed from a 2019 reference made by a two-judge Bench seeking clarity on the constitutional validity of domicile-based reservations for PG medical courses.
It also addressed appeals against a Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict, which had previously struck down domicile-based reservations in the admission prospectus of Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh.
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing private respondents, argued against domicile-based reservations, asserting their unconstitutionality—a position the Supreme Court upheld.
With this ruling, the Court has reinforced the principle that merit should be the sole criterion for PG medical admissions, ensuring a uniform standard across the country.