In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has declared domicile-based reservation in postgraduate (PG) medical seats unconstitutional, citing its violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution. This decision reaffirms the constitutional principle that educational and employment opportunities should not be restricted based on residence.
Understanding Domicile-Based Reservations
Domicile-based reservations refer to preferences given to residents of a particular state or union territory in education, employment, or other government-backed opportunities. While some states implement these policies to prioritize local candidates, such reservations often face legal challenges on constitutional grounds.
Constitutional Provisions Related to Domicile-Based Reservations
🔹 Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination, making residence-based restrictions in education questionable.
🔹 Article 16(2): Prohibits discrimination in employment opportunities based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
🔹 Article 16(3): Parliament has the power to make laws prescribing residential requirements for employment in a particular state or UT. However, this provision does not extend to educational reservations, making domicile-based quotas in PG medical seats legally unsound.
Supreme Court’s Stand on the Issue
📌 Violation of Fundamental Rights: The apex court held that giving preference to residents for PG medical seats violates the right to equality under Article 14.
📌 Postgraduate Medical Education & Merit: The Court emphasized that PG medical education should be based on merit, as these courses lead to specialization and directly impact healthcare quality.
📌 Contradiction with All-India Quota (AIQ): The judgment aligns with the All-India Quota (AIQ) system, which aims to ensure equal access to medical education across states.
Relevance for UPSC & Policy Implications
✅ Education Policy: The ruling reinforces the need for merit-based admission policies in higher education.
✅ Legal Precedents: Strengthens the constitutional principle that residence cannot be the sole criterion for reservations.
✅ Federalism & State Autonomy: While states seek to prioritize local students, such measures must align with constitutional provisions.
UPSC Practice Question
Consider the following statements regarding domicile-based reservations in India:
Article 16(2) prohibits the state from discriminating in employment based on residence.
Article 16(3) allows states to make laws regarding domicile-based reservations in educational institutions.
The Supreme Court has held domicile-based reservations in PG medical seats unconstitutional.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, and 3
Comments