‘We have right to carry on trade, business, profession anywhere in India’
New Delhi: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held domicile-based reservation in postgraduate medical courses by a state was unconstitutional.
A three-judge bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti said if such a reservation was permitted, it would be an invasion of the fundamental rights of several students.
“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 and business or a profession anywhere in India,” the bench said.
It went on, “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.”
The apex court held that considering the importance of specialist doctors in PG medical course reservation on the basis of “residence” would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
“If such a reservation is permitted then it would be an invasion of the fundamental rights of several students…,” the bench said.
The top court said the state quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on the basis of merit in all India examination.
The judgement came on a reference made by a division bench which raised certain questions arising during the hearing of appeals against a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in relation to admissions in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh.
The High Court held as invalid certain provisions made by the medical college.
The process of admissions to PG medical course in the college started on March 28, 2019 and it had 64 PG seats in its state quota.
The seats falling under the state quota were reserved either for the “residents” of Chandigarh or those who did their MBBS from the same college.
The top court said of the 64 seats to be filled by the state, 32 seats could have been filled on the basis of institutional preference.
“But the other 32 seats earmarked as UT Chandigarh pool were wrongly filled on the basis of residence, and we uphold the findings of the high court on this crucial aspect,” it said.
The apex court clarified the declaration of impermissibility of residence-based reservation in PG courses would not affect the reservations already granted; students undergoing PG courses or those already passed out in the present case from Government Medical College, Chandigarh.
