The dispute arose from Chandigarh's PG medical admissions, where State-quota seats were ring-fenced for candidates on residence-based criteria, and travelled to a three-judge bench on the enduring question the Court had left partly open since Pradeep Jain (1984): how far can geography count in allocating the country's most sought-after postgraduate seats?
The Key Question Before the Court
Can State-quota PG medical seats be reserved for residents or domiciles of that State?
Specialisation Belongs to Merit
Justice Dhulia's judgment holds the line drawn by the Court's earlier cases and makes it categorical: at the postgraduate level, where specialists are trained for the whole country, residence-based reservation is constitutionally impermissible. We are all domiciled in one India — a single citizenship with common rights — and a State quota cannot become a State wall. Residence may legitimately play a limited role in MBBS admissions, but in PG courses the higher the level of specialisation, the lesser the room for anything but merit.
What Survives: Institutional Preference, Past Admissions
The judgment preserves two things. Institutional preference — a leg-up for candidates who did MBBS at the same institution — remains valid to a reasonable extent, not exceeding half the open seats, as a rational classification tied to the institution rather than the candidate's address. And prospectivity protected those already admitted: candidates who had taken admission under interim orders or completed courses were not disturbed.
What the Court Actually Held
- Residence or domicile-based reservation in State-quota PG medical admissions violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional.
- Institutional preference remains permissible to a reasonable extent, up to 50% of the seats.
- Admissions already granted under interim arrangements were not disturbed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It ends a patchwork of State domicile rules that fragmented the national PG admissions pool.
- It recalibrates counselling across States: State quotas remain, but filled by merit among all-India candidates, subject only to institutional preference.
- It restates the constitutional theme of one domicile — that of India — against creeping sons-of-the-soil policies in professional education.
- Its logic radiates beyond medicine to every specialised public admission built on residence.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates
- Challenge any PG prospectus clause reserving State-quota seats by residence; the ground is settled and the remedy swift at the counselling stage.
For States and Universities
- Redesign seat matrices around institutional preference (within the cap) and open merit; domicile columns in PG matrices are now indefensible.
Key Takeaways
- Domicile quotas in PG medical admissions are unconstitutional.
- Merit governs specialist training; geography does not.
- Institutional preference survives, capped at 50%.
- Past admissions under interim orders stand protected.
Frequently Asked Questions
No — a limited residence-based preference at the undergraduate level remains permissible; the prohibition operates at the postgraduate, specialist level.
A preference for candidates who graduated from the same institution; it remains valid to a reasonable extent, not exceeding 50% of the seats.
No. Admissions already made, including under interim orders, were left undisturbed; the ruling governs admissions going forward.
Conclusion
The judgment restores a simple proposition to PG admissions: the patient on the table cares about the surgeon's training, not the surgeon's address.
Practical takeaway: In PG counselling disputes, the seat matrix itself is the evidence — any residence-based carve-out is now per se vulnerable.
Read the full judgment: Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors. — (2025) 01 SC CK 1601 →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit
courtkutchehry.com