Domicile based reservation in PG medical courses unconstitutional: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that domicile or residence-based reservation for admissions to the postgraduate medical courses within the State Quota is violative of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India [Tanvi Behl v. Shreya Goyal]..The Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti observed that the admissions must strictly be based on 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 basis of residence is violative of Article 14," the Court ruled.However, the Court clarified that today's judgment will not affect reservations already granted under the residence-based category..The Court passed the ruling on a 2019 reference made by a two-judge Bench which had raised the following questions: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?(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?.The legal questions had risen during the hearing of appeals against a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in relation to the PG admissions at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh.The High Court had held to be invalid certain provisions made by the medical college in its prospectus, so far as it related to the domicile or residence-based reservation as provided in UT Chandigarh Pool..Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta led arguments for private respondents who argued that such domicile reservation is impermissible, as was held by the High Court.