A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti delivered the judgment, emphasizing that residence-based reservations in PG medical courses are constitutionally impermissible. The court stated, "We are all domiciles in the territory of India. There is nothing like a provincial or state domicile. There is only one domicile. We are all residents of India. We have the right to choose residence anywhere in India and to carry out trade and profession anywhere in the country. Constitution also gives us the right to choose admission in educational institutions across India. The benefit of reservation in educational institutions, including medical colleges, for those who reside in a particular state can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses. But considering the importance of specialised doctors in PG medical courses, reservation in higher levels on the basis of residence would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
This ruling aligns with precedents set in cases such as Pradeep Jain and Saurabh Chandra, where the Supreme Court held that domicile-based reservations are impermissible in PG medical admissions. The court reiterated that while limited reservations based on residence may be allowed at the undergraduate level, extending such reservations to PG courses undermines the principle of meritocracy essential for specialized medical education.
The judgment further clarifies that the decision will not affect students who have already been admitted to PG medical courses under domicile-based reservations or those who have graduated under such schemes. This ensures that current students' academic pursuits remain uninterrupted.
Legal experts have lauded the decision, stating that it reinforces the constitutional mandate of equality and merit-based access to higher education. They argue that the ruling will promote a more competitive environment in PG medical admissions, ensuring that the most qualified candidates are selected.
However, the judgment has also sparked discussions about the balance between merit and regional representation in medical education. Some stakeholders express concerns that the ruling may disadvantage students from certain states who rely on domicile-based reservations to secure PG medical seats.
In response to these concerns, the court emphasized the importance of uniform standards in medical education across the country. The bench noted that allowing domicile-based reservations in PG courses could lead to disparities in the quality of medical professionals trained in different states, ultimately affecting healthcare delivery nationwide.
The ruling also has implications for state policies on medical admissions. States that currently implement domicile-based reservations in their PG medical admissions will need to revise their policies to comply with the Supreme Court's directive. This may involve restructuring admission procedures to prioritize NEET scores and ensure a merit-based selection process.
Medical institutions across the country are expected to align their admission protocols with this judgment. The Medical Council of India and other regulatory bodies may issue guidelines to facilitate the transition to a merit-based admission system for PG medical courses.