Domicile-Based Reservation in PG Medical Seats Violates Article 14: Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl

Chandigarh's only Government Medical College had 64 State quota PG seats: half for its own MBBS graduates and half for a 'UT Chandigarh pool' open to candidates who had studied there for 5 years, whose parents had resided there, or whose family held property there (para 2). The Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the residence clauses under Article 14 and directed that the seats be filled by NEET merit (paras 3-4). This Court granted an ad-interim stay on 09.05.2019, keeping admissions already made subject to the outcome, and a Division Bench referred the questions to a larger Bench (paras 4-5).

The question was settled: Jagadish Saran allowed institutional preference, Pradeep Jain held residence-based reservation in PG seats violative of Article 14, and the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri followed Pradeep Jain (paras 7-9). Saurabh Chaudri does say Article 15 does not bar residence-based reservation, but that is not a complete reading of it (para 11). At PG level merit cannot be compromised, though some residence-based reservation is permissible for MBBS (paras 13-14). Such reservation runs counter to the idea of citizenship and equality (para 15). Domicile is a legal concept tied to personal law; States often misuse it to mean residence, and there is only one domicile, the domicile of India (paras 19-20, 24). Even though Article 15 does not name residence, a classification between residents and others must still pass Article 14 (para 28). A State may favour residents in MBBS seats given its expense and local needs, but for specialist PG courses such reservation denies equality before the law (paras 29, 31). Later decisions, including Neil Aurelio Nunes, followed Pradeep Jain (para 32).