Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16 – Reservation in PG Medical Course – Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh reserved 64 PG medical seats in State Quota – 32 seats reserved for “residents” of State and 32 seats reserved for those who have done their MBBS from the same Medical College in Chandigarh, i.e., by institutional preference – Clause of prospectus providing for such residence based reservation challenged – High Court struck down such provision as being unconstitutional for violating Art.14 and directed the Medical College to fill seats according to merit – Appeal filed before Supreme Court:
Held: The principle laid down in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, that residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical Courses, was followed by the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India that governs the issue – Apart from institutional preferences, which may be a reasonable classification permissible under Art.14, as held in Saurabh Chaudri, reservation on basis of residence in PG courses and other higher learning courses violative of Art.14 – Reliance placed on Jagadish Saran and Pradeep Jain to hold that residence-based reservation is permissible for MBBS Courses to a reasonable degree – At PG level merit cannot be compromised – MBBS is a basic medical degree and insistence on highest talent may be relaxed – Role of high grade skill may be more at higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment – Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk – Further held, although Art.15 does not bar State from making ‘residence’ a requirement, for admission in medical colleges or like matters and Art.16 speaks of residence in context of employment under a State, both are different facets of concept of equality embodied in Art.14 – Therefore, a legislation has to still pass muster under Art.14 – Apart from reasonable number of institution-based reservations, seats to be filled strictly on merit in All-India examination – Thus, 32 seat validly filled on basis of institutional preference – Other 32 seats wrongly filled on basis of residence – Present Appellants granted admission under the residence category and undergoing their course not to be affected. [Paras 5, 8-17, 28-34]
Concept of “domicile” and residence/permanent residence – Discussed:
Held: Legal concept of domicile different than that understood in ordinary parlance – ‘Domicile’ is a legal concept for purposes of determining what is the ‘personal law’ applicable to an individual – The concept of domicile acquires importance only when within a country there are different laws or more precisely different systems of law operating which is not the case in India – Each citizen carries one single domicile, ‘Domicile of India’, referred to as domicile in the territory of India as under Art.5 – Regional or provincial domicile is alien to Indian legal system – Reliance placed on Pradeep Jain where the court held that the legal system which prevails throughout the territory of India is one single indivisible system with a single unified justice system and further condemned the practice of wrongly using the nomenclature “domicile” in its popular sense denoting residence – Reliance also placed on full bench of Bombay High Court in The State v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame to hold merely because a State legislature makes laws on certain subject matters, it will not mean that persons residing in that State have a provincial domicile – Expression ‘domicile’ not relevant in constructing competency of State Legislature. [Paras 18-25] Reservation – In public employment on the basis of residence – permissibility:
Held: The exception carved out under Clause 3 of Article 16, enables only Parliament to make a law prescribing requirement of residence for State employment – In situations which necessarily demand prescription of residence within any State or UT as an essential qualification it should be the Parliament (and not State legislatures) which should be empowered to make a law for that purpose, so that there is a uniformity throughout India on this. [Paras 25-27]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.