LexDR. TANVI BEHL versus SHREY GOEL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1209 : 2025 INSC 125 Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019) 29 January 2025 [Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia,* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether providing domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to Postgraduate (PG) Medical Courses within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and impermissible; Difference between domicile and residence discussed. Headnotes† Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16 – Reservation in PG Medical Course – Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh reserved 64 PG medical seats in State Quota – 32 seats reserved for “residents” of State and 32 seats reserved for those who have done their MBBS from the same Medical College in Chandigarh, i.e., by institutional preference – Clause of prospectus providing for such residence based reservation challenged – High Court struck down such provision as being unconstitutional for violating Art.14 and directed the Medical College to fill seats according to merit – Appeal filed before Supreme Court: Held: The principle laid down in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, that residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical Courses, was followed by the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India that governs the issue – Apart from institutional preferences, which may be a reasonable classification permissible under Art.14, as held in Saurabh Chaudri, reservation on basis of residence in PG courses and other higher learning courses violative of Art.14 – Reliance placed on Jagadish Saran and Pradeep Jain to hold that residence-based reservation is permissible for MBBS Courses to a reasonable degree – At PG level merit cannot be compromised – MBBS is a basic medical degree and insistence on highest talent may be relaxed – Role of high grade skill may be more at higher levels of sophisticated * Author 1210 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports skills and strategic employment – Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk – Further held, although Art.15 does not bar State from making ‘residence’ a requirement, for admission in medical colleges or like matters and Art.16 speaks of residence in context of employment under a State, both are different facets of concept of equality embodied in Art.14 – Therefore, a legislation has to still pass muster under Art.14 – Apart from reasonable number of institution-based reservations, seats to be filled strictly on merit in All-India examination – Thus, 32 seat validly filled on basis of institutional preference – Other 32 seats wrongly filled on basis of residence – Present Appellants granted admission under the residence category and undergoing their course not to be affected. [Paras 5, 8-17, 28-34] Concept of “domicile” and residence/permanent residence – Discussed: Held: Legal concept of domicile different than that understood in ordinary parlance – ‘Domicile’ is a legal concept for purposes of determining what is the ‘personal law’ applicable to an individual – The concept of domicile acquires importance only when within a country there are different laws or more precisely different systems of law operating which is not the case in India – Each citizen carries one single domicile, ‘Domicile of India’, referred to as domicile in the territory of India as under Art.5 – Regional or provincial domicile is alien to Indian legal system – Reliance placed on Pradeep Jain where the court held that the legal system which prevails throughout the territory of India is one single indivisible system with a single unified justice system and further condemned the practice of wrongly using the nomenclature “domicile” in its popular sense denoting residence – Reliance also placed on full bench of Bombay High Court in The State v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame to hold merely because a State legislature makes laws on certain subject matters, it will not mean that persons residing in that State have a provincial domicile – Expression ‘domicile’ not relevant in constructing competency of State Legislature. [Paras 18-25] Reservation – In public employment on the basis of residence – permissibility: Held: The exception carved out under Clause 3 of Article 16, enables only Parliament to make a law prescribing requirement of residence [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1211 Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors. for State employ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.