NEET PG- Tamil Nadu to Contest SC Ruling on Domicile-Based Reservation

Chennai: The Tamil Nadu Government has decided to challenge the recent order of the Supreme Court holding domicile-based reservations in specialized and higher studies, including postgraduate (PG) medical courses impermissible.

TOI has reported that the State has announced its decision to file a review petition to assert its rights and uphold social justice. Speaking about this, State Health Minister Ma Subramanian informed how the Apex Court order would affect 69 percent reservation and in-service quota for admission to government medical colleges and the reservation for minorities in self-financing medical colleges. 

He pointed out that the judgment will also take away the rights of the State. As per the existing rules, the Central Government conducts counselling for 15 percent of undergraduate medical seats and 50 percent of postgraduate medical seats and super speciality seats.

Also Read: Supreme Court Denies to Stay Telangana HC Order Striking Down Local Quota Criteria for PG Medical Admissions

In this regard, Minister Subramanian told the reporters, "We lost all seats in super speciality courses. After a court battle, Tamil Nadu ensured govt doctors have a quota for admission in super speciality courses." He further mentioned that the seats that cannot be filled due to lack of candidates are surrendered to the Central Government, the Times of India has reported.

Pointing out how the State Government funds the PG and super speciality medical education completely and yet shares 50% of seats for admission under the All India Quota, the Minister added, "Now, the judgment snatches away all the seats from us."

He pointed out that even though the order would not affect the admissions made in 2024, its ramifications will be significant from the next academic year. In this regard, he informed that the Government is consulting legal experts to have this quickly reversed to the 50-50 seat-sharing model.

Meanwhile, the Government Doctors' Association has pointed out that most hospitals, including premier institutes like Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, have postgraduate doctors as part of their workforce. Referring to this, a senior government doctor mentioned, "Doctors from other states will find it difficult to communicate with patients. This will hamper treatment for poor patients."

"Also, if you don’t have a quota for local doctors, the workforce will reduce drastically," mentioned the officials.

What did the Supreme Court say? 

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on January 29th, 2025 held that domicile-based reservations for postgraduate medical admission cannot be allowed as violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Apex Court bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshy Dhulia and SVN Bhatti observed, "Residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

Therefore, the bench clarified that providing domicile residence-based reservations in admission to State quota PG medical seats was constitutionally impermissible and held that such seats have to be filled based on merit in the NEET exam.

These observations were made by the top court bench while considering a case involving Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, and its 64 PG medical seats being reserved under the State quota. Petitions were filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the provision as it gave reservation on the basis of residence, which resulted in all 64 seats being filled either by the residents of Chandigarh or by students who had done their MBBS from the same Medical College under institutional preference.

While considering the matter, the Apex Court bench referred to the Constituent Assembly debate, where a question arose whether residence in a State should be a criterion for appointment in government service of that State. The overwhelming opinion was that it should not. Since there is one citizenship, a citizen should have a right to reside anywhere in the country and similarly seek a job anywhere in the country, this was the dominant feeling.

In this regard, the bench relied on the solution offered by Dr Ambedkar and observed, "It was ultimately decided that residence cannot be a ground for discrimination in matters relating to employment, but in situations which necessarily demand prescription of residence within any State or UT as an essential qualification, it should be the Parliament (and not State legislatures) which should be empowered to make a law for that purpose, so that there is a uniformity throughout India on this."

Regarding the domicile-based reservation for admission to PG medical admission, the Apex Court bench noted,

"We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country gives us the right not only to choose our residence anywhere in India, but also gives us the right to carry on trade & business or a profession anywhere in India. It also gives us the right to seek admission in educational institutions across India. The benefit of ‘reservation’ in educational institutions including medical colleges to those who reside in a particular State can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses, for which we have assigned reasons in the preceding paragraphs. But considering the importance of specialists doctors’ in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

"This has been explained with pronounced clarity both in Jagadish Saran and Pradeep Jain. If such a reservation is permitted then it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who are being treated unequally simply for the reasons that they belong to a different State in the Union! This would be a violation of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution and would amount to a denial of equality before the law," the bench further noted.

Relying on legal precedence, the bench concluded that "residence-based reservations are not permissible in PG medical courses."

However, the bench also clarified, "We make it clear though that our declaration of impermissibility of residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses will not affect such reservations already granted, and students are undergoing PG courses or have already passed out in the present case, from Government Medical College, Chandigarh. We do this simply because now there is an equity in favour of such students who must have already completed the course. Logically, therefore, the present appellants who were granted admission under the residence category and were undergoing their course, & also by virtue of the interim order of this Court dated 09.05.2019, will not be affected by our judgment."

To view the Supreme Court order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-domicile-based-reservation-271927.pdf

Also Read: NEET PG Admissions: Domicile-Based Reservation Unconstitutional!- Supreme Court