In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that domicile-based reservations for postgraduate (PG) medical courses violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. This ruling has reshaped the landscape of PG medical admissions, emphasizing merit-based selection over residence-based criteria.
The judgment marks a significant step toward equitable educational opportunities across India, ensuring that aspiring medical professionals are selected based on their abilities rather than their state of residence.
The ruling has sparked wide discussions across the nation, particularly among students and legal experts. The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, stated that domicile-based reservations should only be applicable in undergraduate medical courses and not at the postgraduate level.
This decision has overturned the previous practice of granting state quota reservations based on a candidate’s place of domicile for PG medical seats.
Key Points of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Domicile-Based Reservation
- Violation of Article 14: The Supreme Court emphasized that residence-based reservation for PG medical courses violates the fundamental right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
- Merit-Based Admission: The Court stressed that medical admissions at the postgraduate level should be determined solely by merit, without any influence of domicile or state of residence.
- Reservation Limits: The ruling clarified that residence-based reservations may be permissible for undergraduate courses like MBBS, but such provisions should not extend to postgraduate medical education due to the importance of specialized medical training and merit-based selection.
- Impact on Existing Admissions: The judgment will not affect students who have already gained admissions based on domicile-based reservations in the past. It will only apply to future admissions in PG medical courses.
- Legal Precedent: The case dates back to 2019, when the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ruled against domicile-based reservations in PG medical admissions. The Supreme Court was asked to settle the matter, leading to this final and authoritative judgment.
The Journey to the Supreme Court’s Ruling
The controversy surrounding domicile-based reservation in PG medical courses began when the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that such reservations were unconstitutional.
In response, the case was referred to the Supreme Court for a final decision. The core issues revolved around whether residence-based reservation could be constitutionally justified for PG medical admissions under the State Quota.
The Supreme Court Bench took a thorough examination of the matter, considering the following questions:
- Is domicile-based reservation for PG medical courses unconstitutional?
- If permissible, what should be the extent and manner of such reservations in PG medical admissions?
- How should State Quota seats be allocated if domicile-based reservations are impermissible?
After careful deliberation, the Court concluded that merit should be the sole criterion for PG medical course admissions, rejecting the notion of using residence or domicile as a deciding factor for admission into specialized courses.
Implications of the Ruling
- Equity in Education: The judgment ensures that medical admissions are fair and equitable, offering equal opportunities to students from across India, irrespective of their state of origin. This is a significant step toward bridging the gap between various regions and ensuring that the best candidates are chosen for medical specialization.
- Impact on Future PG Admissions: The ruling will guide future admissions to PG medical courses, emphasizing merit-based selection through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and ensuring that domicile will no longer be a factor in state quota admissions.
- State Quota Reservations: While the Supreme Court upheld the validity of domicile-based reservations for undergraduate courses like MBBS, the ruling makes it clear that such practices cannot extend to higher medical education, where merit-based selection should prevail.
Legal and Constitutional Perspectives
The Supreme Court’s decision has sparked a debate on the constitutional validity of residence-based reservations in higher education. The Court’s ruling stands as a crucial interpretation of Article 14, which guarantees that all citizens are equal before the law.
The Court found that allowing states to reserve PG medical seats based on domicile undermines this principle of equality and fairness.
Supreme Court’s View on State Quotas
While the Supreme Court recognized that state quotas can be used for undergraduate courses, it emphasized that the focus for PG courses should be on producing specialized doctors who are not only qualified but also chosen based on their capabilities and academic performance. This reinforces the importance of merit and the need for quality medical professionals across the country.
What Does This Mean for Domicile-Based Reservation?
The ruling is a major step towards reforming reservation policies in higher education. The Supreme Court made it clear that such reservations can only be justified under specific circumstances, such as undergraduate medical admissions, where regional imbalances may be addressed.
For PG medical courses, the emphasis will now be entirely on merit, without any consideration of a candidate’s place of origin.
Conclusion: A New Era for PG Medical Admissions
The Supreme Court’s ruling on domicile-based reservations for PG medical courses represents a progressive shift in India’s education system. By focusing on merit-based selection, the judgment ensures a more equitable and transparent process for medical admissions in the country.
This move is likely to set a precedent for future educational reforms that prioritize academic excellence and fairness.
BY – NIKITA
