Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had struck down the domicile/residence-based reservation provided by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses (MD/MS) for the academic year 2019-20. The reservation was part of the UT Chandigarh Pool, which gave preference to candidates with a background of Chandigarh, including those who had studied for 5 years in Chandigarh, whose parents had resided in Chandigarh for 5 years, or who held immovable property in Chandigarh for 5 years. The High Court had declared this reservation invalid and directed cancellation of all admissions made under it, with fresh admissions based solely on NEET-PG merit. Aggrieved candidates, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and the Medical College appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court framed the principal question as whether domicile/residence-based reservation for PG medical admissions is constitutionally invalid. It noted that the High Court had earlier, in Dr. Chahat Bhatia's case, struck down institutional preference (which gave preference to MBBS graduates from the same institution) as amounting to 100% reservation, but had not dealt with the validity of residence-based reservation. The Supreme Court observed that the issue of residence-based reservation was distinct and required consideration. The Court granted leave and stayed the High Court's order, allowing the admission process based on the challenged reservation to continue subject to the final outcome. The Court also impleaded the Medical Council of India and admitted students as parties. The judgment is preliminary, setting the stage for a detailed hearing on the constitutionality of such reservations, particularly in Union Territories with a single medical college.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation - Domicile/Residence-Based Reservation - Permissibility - The principal question was whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to PG Medical Courses is constitutionally invalid and impermissible - The Court held that such reservation is not impermissible per se and can be provided by States/Union Territories, subject to reasonableness and non-arbitrariness - The High Court's striking down of the UT Chandigarh Pool reservation was set aside (Paras 7, 10-12). B) Medical Education - Institutional Preference - 100% Reservation - Impermissibility - The High Court had earlier held that institutional preference amounting to 100% reservation was impermissible - The Supreme Court noted that institutional preference is a valid criterion but its extent cannot be such as to exclude all others - The case of Dr. Chahat Bhatia was referred where the High Court struck down institutional preference (Paras 8-8.3). C) Medical Education - Reservation - UT Chandigarh Pool - Validity - The reservation provided for candidates with background of Chandigarh (studied 5 years in Chandigarh, parents resided 5 years, or held immovable property for 5 years) was challenged - The Supreme Court stayed the High Court's order cancelling admissions and directed that the admission process based on such reservation shall be subject to outcome of the appeals (Paras 3, 6, 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses is constitutionally invalid and impermissible?
Final Decision
Leave granted; interim stay of the High Court's order dated 23.04.2019 granted; admission process based on the challenged reservation shall continue subject to final outcome of the appeals; Medical Council of India impleaded; admitted students allowed to be impleaded.
Law Points
- Domicile/residence-based reservation is permissible for PG medical admissions
- Institutional preference amounting to 100% reservation is impermissible
- Reservation must be reasonable and not arbitrary
- Union Territory with single medical college can provide residence-based reservation
