
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court (SC) of India has declared domicile-based reservations for postgraduate (PG) medical courses under the state quota unconstitutional, citing a violation of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, redefines how state quotas function in PG medical admissions, emphasising that merit should take precedence over residency considerations.
So, what does this mean for medical students in India and the overall counselling process for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test - Postgraduate (NEET-PG) exam? Let us understand from experts.
Is state counselling eliminated?
The Supreme Court ruled that providing admission reservations based on domicile is discriminatory and contradicts the fundamental right to equality. The court maintained that residency should not be a criterion for state quota seats in PG medical courses.
Despite speculation, the ruling does not eliminate state counselling for NEET-PG admissions, as explained by Rakesh Jain, Founder of NEET Navigator, a platform that provides specialised medical admission counselling services.
Jain clarified that while domicile-based reservations have been struck down, states still retain the discretion to conduct counselling and regulate seat allocation under their own rules.
“People are saying that now, in NEET-PG admissions, there will not be any state counselling. No, it is not that way. There will be state counselling, and there is a role for state counselling as well,” Jain stated.
While domicile-based reservations have been abolished, certain eligibility criteria linked to residency can still be implemented by states.
He emphasised that for higher medical specialisations, merit should be the primary determinant rather than residency.
“Most people are misunderstanding this judgment. Some think all seats will now be filled through central counselling, which is not true. The Supreme Court has not stopped the state's discretion in filling up seats. The only thing they are saying is that when you are earmarking seats, residency should not be the criteria for PG admissions,” Jair explained.
Jain added that however, how the state counselling process will now be carried out still remains to be seen.
Impact on medical aspirants
The decision is expected to open up more opportunities for medical graduates to pursue PG courses across states without facing domicile-based restrictions.
Dr Rohan Krishnan, Chairman of the Federation of All India Medical Association (FAIMA), welcomed the judgment, emphasising that PG medical admissions should be based solely on merit.
“When it comes to the NEET-PG examination, such reservation which is state-based gives less opportunity to someone who has done MBBS from remote areas and wants to come to prestigious institutes like Maulana Azad Medical College, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital or Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences (RMLIMS),” he stated.
“If someone from Delhi wants to study in Mumbai or Chennai, they should have that choice if they rank higher in the merit list. Merit should not be jeopardised by state-level discrimination,” he added
Krishnan further asserted that while other forms of reservation may serve a social purpose, domicile-based quotas hinder fairness in competitive medical admissions.
The ruling specifically applies to postgraduate medical courses. Undergraduate (MBBS) admissions will continue to follow the existing system, where some level of domicile-based reservations is permissible.
Why it matters?
This judgment alters the landscape of PG medical admissions by ensuring a merit-driven process. While states retain control over counselling procedures, they must ensure that residency does not serve as an exclusionary criterion, add experts.
The ruling stemmed from a reference made by a division bench reviewing a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision concerning admissions to Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh.
The high court had invalidated provisions that allocated state quota seats based on residency. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, marking a significant shift in policy.