Supreme Court: In a significant decision, the 3-Judge Bench of Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia* and S.V.N Bhatti, JJ., while deliberating over whether residence-based reservation in Postgraduate (PG) Medical Courses by a State is constitutionally valid, held that, considering the importance of specialist doctors’ in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level based on ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Background:
The Division Bench of A.M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari in in Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, (2020) 13 SCC 675, heard the appeals against Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated 23-04-2019, wherein it was held that the provisions made by the Medical College in question in its prospectus were invalid, so far relating to the domicile/residence-based reservation as provided in UT Chandigarh Pool; and had struck down the same while directing that all the admissions made on the basis of such invalid reservation in the said Medical College be cancelled and fresh admission process for admission to the PG Medical Courses for the academic year 2019-20 be carried out on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test.
Therefore, while considering the issue of the legality and validity of domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses (MD/MS Courses 2019) Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, had referred the following questions/issues for consideration by a larger Bench:
1. Whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible?
2(a) If answer to the first question is in the negative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, what should be the extent and manner of providing such domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota seats?
2(b) Again, if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, considering that all the admissions are to be based on the merit and rank obtained in NEET, what should be the modality of providing such domicile/residence based reservation in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College?
3. If answer to the first question is in the affirmative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is impermissible, as to how the State Quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, are to be filled up?
Court’s Assessment:
Answering Issue 1, the Court straightaway held that providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State quota is constitutionally invalid and impermissible. With the first issue decided thusly, the Court did not see the need to answers Issues 2(a) and 2(b).
The Court relied on 3- Judge Bench decisions given by the Supreme Court in Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768; Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 and Constitution Bench decision in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146.
The Court pointed out that the question in Saurabh Chaudri (supra) was the validity of institutional preference/reservation as well as reservation based on residence. The Court clarified that Saurabh Chaudri though holds institutional preference or reservations to a reasonable extent permissible under the Constitution in PG courses yet holds reservation in PG Medical Courses and other higher learning courses, on the basis of ‘residence’ in the State as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court pointed out that Saurabh Chaudri relies heavily on both Pradeep Jain and Jagadish Saran. To a reasonable degree residence-based reservation in a State is permissible for MBBS Courses (Pradeep Jain), but the same reservation for PG Courses is not permissible by a long line of decisions of the Court, including Pradeep Jain. The Court further pointed out that the difference in the logic in making reservations on the basis of residence in UG level or MBBS level, and PG level was explained in Jagadish Saran as well as Pradeep Jain. It was held that at PG level merit cannot be compromised, although residence- based reservation can be permissible to a certain degree in UG or MBBS course.
In the instant reference, the Court explained that residence-based reservation is impermissible because such reservation runs counter to the idea of citizenship and equality under the Constitution.
Examining the Constitutional provisions, the Court pointed out that Article 14 speaks of Right to equality and declares that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of law within the territory of India. Article 15 declares that the State shall not discriminate on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth; though Article 15(3) is in the nature of a proviso leaving it open for the State to make any special provision for women and children.
Deliberating over the concept of ‘domicile’, the Court observed that domicile has been equated to residence or permanent residence, by the State machinery or by educational institutions in a loose/casual manner; therefore, the concept of ‘domicile’ needs to be clarified.
The Court explained that domicile in normal parlance denotes ‘the place of living’ or permanent residence. The legal concept is, however, different. The purpose for which domicile is used by Governments is like a substitute for ‘permanent residence’ or a ‘permanent home’. Yet ‘domicile’ is primarily a legal concept for the purposes of determining what is the ‘personal law’ applicable to an individual. Therefore, even if an individual has no permanent residence or permanent home, he is still invested with a ‘domicile’ albeit by law or implication of law.
Consequently, the concept of domicile acquires importance only when within a country there are different laws or more precisely different systems of law operating. However, this is not the case in India. Each citizen of this country carries with him or her, one single domicile which is the ‘Domicile of India’. The concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system.
The Court clarified that the very concept of a provincial or state domicile in India is a misconception. There is only one domicile in India, which is referred to as domicile in the territory of India as given under Article 5 of the Constitution.
“All Indians have only one domicile, which is the Domicile of India”
The Court further explained that permanent residence or residence have a meaning which is different from that of ‘domicile’. Article 15 speaks of ‘place of birth’, whereas Article 16 states that no citizen shall be discriminated, inter alia, on the ground of ‘residence’. State cannot grant reservation in public employment on the basis of residence in that State. The exception carved out under Article 16(3), enables only the Parliament to make a law prescribing a requirement of residence for State employment.
The Court stated that 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 the right not only to choose our residence anywhere in India but also gives us the right to carry on trade & business or a profession anywhere in India. It also gives us the right to seek admission in educational institutions across India.
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. However, considering the importance of specialists doctors’ in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
“If such a reservation is permitted then it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who are being treated unequally simply for the reasons that they belong to a different State in the Union! This would be a violation of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution and would amount to a denial of equality before the law”.
Decision:
Pertaining to the facts of the instant case, the Court determined that residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical courses, the State quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on the basis of merit in the All- India examination. Thus, out of 64 seats which were to be filled by the State in its quota 32 could have been filled on the basis of institutional preference, and these are valid. But the other 32 seats earmarked as U.T. Chandigarh pool were wrongly filled on the basis of residence. Thus, the Court upheld the findings of Punjab & Haryana High Court on this crucial aspect.
The Court clarified that declaration of impermissibility of residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses will not affect such reservations already granted, and students are undergoing PG courses or have already passed out from Government Medical College, Chandigarh. Applying the principle of equity, the Court said that the present appellants who were granted admission under the residence category and were undergoing their course, will not be affected by this judgment.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Parties: |
CORAM :
Buy Constitution of India HERE
