Supreme Court Strikes Down Domicile-Based Reservations in NEET‑PG Admissions
- ByAdmin --
- 17 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment declaring domicile-based state quotas in NEET‑PG admissions unconstitutional. The Court held that such quotas violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and emphasized that merit must drive admission to specialized medical courses.
Background
- Several states, including Chandigarh, had imposed residence- or domicile-based quotas for state‑quota NEET‑PG seats, reserving seats for local residents or graduates from in-state institutions.
- The practice was challenged in courts, leading to a 2019 reference by a two-judge bench to examine the constitutional validity of such quotas.
- The Supreme Court, now in its definitive ruling, addressed whether only institutional preference could be allowed, or whether residence-based quotas were permissible post-undergraduate levels.
Bench Composition & Legal Rationale
The three-judge bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti unanimously held:
- All Indians share a single domicile—of India—under Article 5; provincial or state domiciles are legally untenable.
- Article 14 prohibits unequal treatment based on state residence, making such quotas unconstitutional at the postgraduate level.
- Article 19(1)(g) ensures every citizen’s right to practice any profession anywhere, reinforcing the freedom of educational and career mobility.
- Undergraduate-level domicile quotas may be permissible due to state investment in infrastructure and local community needs, but PG-level quotas interfere with merit-based selection in specialized medical education.
Court’s Key Directives
- Abolition of domicile-based quotas: State‑quota seats for NEET‑PG must now be allocated purely on the basis of NEET‑PG exam merit.
- Institutional preference quotas (e.g., for internal graduates) may still be allowed to a limited extent, as provided under earlier apex court rulings.
- No retrospective impact on existing students: those already admitted under domicile quotas will continue their education unaffected.
- Immediate implementation: admissions moving forward must follow central merit lists—covering both the All‑India and Institutional preference quotas.
Significance and Wider Implications
- Establishes a precedent of “One India, One Domicile”, ensuring all citizens can pursue medical education nationwide without state-based restrictions.
- Reinforces the principle that postgraduate medical education must prioritize merit, given its direct impact on specialist healthcare quality.
- Conforms with prior Supreme Court decisions like Pradeep Jain and Saurabh Chaudri, which allowed MBBS domicile quotas but disallowed them at the PG level.
- Enhances mobility and opportunity for medical aspirants, especially from smaller states or union territories.
- Builds a foundation for greater national-level uniformity in postgraduate admissions across professional fields.
Path Ahead
- Medical colleges and state authorities must align NEET‑PG admission processes with this ruling.
- Counselling structures must shift to centralized merit-based systems, ensuring equitable seat allocation across India.
- Possible legislative reforms: states may reassess educational investment models. Institutional preference schemes must be clearly defined and transparently implemented.
- Advocates anticipate this ruling will catalyze reforms across other sectors, reinforcing meritocracy and constitutional equality in professional education.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant stride in reinforcing the constitutional principle of equality in higher medical education. By dismantling domicile-based quotas in NEET‑PG admissions, the Court underscores the primacy of exam-based merit and national unity, ensuring that specialist medical seats are accessible to all Indian citizens equally—irrespective of their state of origin.
RELATED Blog
0 comments