LexDR. PRADEEP JAIN ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
A.
B
D
•
•
•
G.
H
942.
~
•
..
DR. PRADEEP JAIN ETC.
v
. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .. ETC.
22nd June,·1984
[P.N. BHAGWATI, AMAR~NDRA NAnl SEN A~D RANG.ANAtH
MISRA, JJ.]
.
.
.
' .
.
'<;onstituti'on oflndia-A~t. 14-Equal opportunity-Reservation ofseati
;n medical colleges for M.B.B .. S .. ari.d Post-graduate medical courses on basts of
don1ici'/e ot"resfdentiaf qualification' and institutional preference-By StateaNJ
·Union Territories-Jfva1id. Wluit should be· the e~tent of such reservation. For
admission to M.B.B.S. and Higher courses-Merit o.nly consideration-Whetlier
and. when.departure can be ma~e.
·
Constitution of Jndia-Art.141-Judgment in this case. applicable to all .
Stales and Oni'on ·Terrfto·_•ies .except the States of ~ndhra:Pradesh and Jammu & .
Kashmir.
·
. ,_
Constitution of India-Art .. 5-0nly one domicile-Domicile in lhe
territory of Jttdia_:_T'? say dom.icile in one Siate or another-Not rfght.
.
•
Words and{Phrases- 'Domicile' - Concept of-·Basicil//y a legal coneept.
Words and Phrases-'Mertt'-Wftat is.
In regard to admfs~ion to M.B B.s. and poSi~sr_aduatefD:edicaJ courses,
a somewhat uniform and consisterit )?rach.c·e had· grown in almost all- tbe
States and Union Territories -to give.Prefereiice to those candidates· ·who had
· their doµiiCile _or permanent residence within 'the ~tate for ·a specified number
of years ·ranging 'Crom3to2<lyears arid· to 'those who had studied in
eduCational institutions in the State fof a contin).lous period varying from 4
to 10 years~ SOmetimes thC' requirement was phfased by. saying .that thC
app1icant must have his domicile in the State .. · The petitioners and the
appellant.who sought admission in M.B B.S. an_d M D.S. cours~s in._different
universities of different States and. ·Union Territory of Delhi chall'enged the "
"'residential requirement and· instiilltiorial preference on the grollnd of being
violative of Constitution. The questio.n which arose fo~ consideration was
whether, consistently with the 'conSt'itutional values, admissioris to a medical
College or any other institution of higher. _Je~rning situate in a state could be
confined to those who bad their •domicile' within the State or who were
resident within the State for a specified n_utDber of_ years or can any reserva-
tion'in a<,!roi'S$ioni l>e mac!e fort}lemw as to give t!iem preceden~ over tho~·
•
•
.I
.l.
. I
PRADEEP JAIN v. tiNION
943
who dcrnot p.osseSs •domicile' or residential qualification within the State,
A
.irrespective of merit.
· Disposing of the writ petitions and the civil appeal •
HELD:
•
(Per f!hagwati and Ra!Jgana_th Misra, JI.)
The entire country is taken ·as one nation with one citizenship and every
effort of the ConstitutiOn makers is directed t9viards emphasizi"ng,, maintaining
a~d presetving 1he·utiity -and _in"tegfity ot the_ nation. Now if India is one
nation_anCI there is ohl)r one_ citizenship, namely, citizenship of India; and
evefy citizen has a right to move Weety throughout the territory.of India and
. to reside and settle iii any part Of India, irrespective of the place where he is
born or- the language which be speaks or the religion which J1e profesSes and
he is.guarari.teed freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the-
territory df ·Indi.i and is
en~itled to equality before the law and equal
protection of the Jaw with other. citizen~ it} every part of the territory of Indi~,
it is difficult to see ho\V a citizen having his permanent home fn ~ariiilnadu or
speaking Tamil language can be regarQed as an outsider in Uttar Pradesh or- a
citizen having his .permanent home in Maharashtra or speaking Mar.athi
l:inguage be)egarded as an outsider in Karnataka. He must be held ·entitled to
the s~rne .rights_as 'a citizen having his pern1anent home in :tJttar Pradesh or
Katnataka, as the ca~ may be. To regard him· as an outsider would- be to deny
him his constitutional rights and to derecognise the essential -unitY and
: integrity of the- country bY treating it a_s if'H were a mere conglomeration of
indep~ndent States. [954F-H; 955A-13]
Article 15, clau~es. Cl) ana (2)-~ar discriminati~n on grounds no-t only.of
-·religion, race. caste or sex. but _also of Place of birth. Art. 16(21 goes further
and provides that no citizen ·shall, on groµn~s Only of religion, racei caste;
sex, desc~nt, place of· ~irth, residence or any of them be ineligible for or
-.· disctiminS.t~ againsExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.