The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that reservation based on domicile or residence for admissions to postgraduate medical courses within the state quota violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, said that admissions should be determined strictly by merit.

"We are all domicile in India and there is no provincial domicile etc. ... This gives us a right to pursue trade across India. Benefit of reservation in education to those who reside in certain areas can be given only in MBBS in some cases. But reservation in higher level on the basis of residence is violative of Article 14," the court stated.

While acknowledging that reservation may be considered "for those who reside in a particular state," the Bench clarified that such provisions should only apply to undergraduate courses. "Considering the importance of specialised doctors, reservation in higher levels - on the basis of residence - would be violative of Article 14," the Bench stated.

The apex court, however, noted that the judgment would not affect existing domicile-based reservations and that students who had completed their degrees under such criteria would not be impacted.

The case originated in 2019 when a two-judge Bench reviewed appeals against a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision, which declared domicile-based reservations for PG medical courses unconstitutional. Recognising the significance of the matter, the two-judge Bench referred it to a three-judge Bench.

The ruling stemmed from a 2019 reference by the two-judge Bench, which raised the following questions:

1. Is domicile/residence-based reservation for PG Medical Course admissions within the State Quota constitutionally invalid and impermissible?

2. (a) If the answer to the first question is negative and such reservations are permissible, what should be the extent and manner of providing them in PG Medical Course admissions within the State Quota?

 (b) If such reservations are permissible, considering NEET-based merit and rank, how should domicile/residence-based reservations be applied in states/UTs with only one Medical College?

3. If domicile/residence-based reservations are impermissible, how should the State Quota seats, other than permissible institutional preference seats, be filled?

These legal questions arose during the appeal hearing concerning PG admissions at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had invalidated certain provisions in the medical college's prospectus that related to domicile-based reservations in the UT Chandigarh Pool, the report said.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta represented the private respondents, arguing that domicile-based reservation is impermissible, as concluded by the high court.