17 hours Ago By Amit Anand Choudhary
NEW DELHI: Observing that there is no concept of state domicile in the Constitution, which only recognises domicile of India, Supreme Court on Wednesday said domicile-based reservation in specialised and higher studies like postgraduate (PG) medical courses is not permissible and quota for residents of states could be extended to a certain degree in undergraduate (UG) courses like MBBS. Differentiating between MBBS and higher studies, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti said quota for UG courses was justified as the state spends money on creating infra and bears expenses on running a medical college. SC: We all are domiciled in the territory of India Supreme Court said quota for UG courses was justified as the state spends money on creating infra.
Therefore, some reservation at the basic level of a medical course, i.e. MBBS, can be permissible for the residents, it said.
"We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country gives us right not only to choose our residence anywhere in India, but also gives us right to carry on trade and business or a profession anywhere in India.
It also gives us the right to seek admission in educational institutions across India," the bench said. "The benefit of reservation in educational institutions, including medical colleges, to those who reside in a particular state can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses. But considering the importance of specialists doctors, reservation at the higher level on the basis of residence would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," it added.
Justice Dhulia, who penned the verdict for the bench, said if such reservation was permitted in PG courses, it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who would be treated unequally simply for the reason that they belonged to a different state in the Union, and this would be a violation of the equality clause in Article 14. He said each citizen of the country carried with him or her one single domicile, which was the "domicile of India", and the concept of regional or provincial domicile was alien to the Indian legal system. The court said the classification between residents and others for MBBS courses could be justified as it sought to maintain a balance of local needs, backwardness of the area, the expense borne by the state in creating the infrastructure etc.
The bench agreed with the submission of senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for a batch of aggrieved students, that reservation in admissions to PG medical courses within the state quota was constitutionally invalid and impermissible. In this case, the students were challenging 32 seats earmarked for Chandigarh residents in Govt Medical College and Hospital. The bench referred to SC's earlier verdict, including one by a constitution bench, and said all admissions to PG courses in any institution should be open to candidates on an all-India basis and there should be no restriction regarding domicile in the state/UT in which the institution was located.
.
