Is domicile-based reservation within state quota for PG Medical Courses constitutionally permissible? Larger bench of SC to decide

A larger bench of the Supreme Court has been invoked to decide whether domicile/residence-based reservation within the state quota for PG Medical courses is constitutionally permissible..A reference to the larger bench was made by a Division Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, which was hearing appeals against an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court..By its judgment passed in April 2019, the High Court had held that the provisions relating to domicile/reservation-based reservation made by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh for admission to its PG Medical courses were invalid. The High Court had also directed that the admissions made for the academic year 2019-20 be cancelled and that the admission process be conducted afresh on the basis of the candidates’ performance in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET)..This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court, which directed the impleadment of the Medical Council of India and the admitted students, and granted an interim stay on the High Court order..Dr. Chahat Bhatia’s case.As a precursor to the present dispute, a similar challenge to domicile reservation at the medical college was made in 2018, in the case of Dr. Chahat Bhatia..While announcing admissions for its PG Medical Courses for the academic year 2018-19, the college had provided that 125 seats were available, out of which, 50% i.e., 63 seats were allocated to All India Quota whereas the remaining 62 seats were meant for the students who had passed MBBS examination from the medical institutions of UT Chandigarh. This prescription of ‘institutional preference’ was challenged by way of a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court..The High Court, by its order passed in May 2018, held that while calculating institutional preference, the seats reserved under All India Quota ought to be excluded. Moreover, the question of domicile/residence-based reservation was not gone into. The Court held,.“We would thus hold the stand of the UT Chandigarh erroneous in this regard. While upholding the principal of institutional preference we would direct that it would relate to 50% of the seats available to the institution after 50% of All India Quota has been consumed and upon such calculation throw open the seats to other deserving aspirants.”.A new year, a new challenge.After the decision in Dr. Chahat Bhatia, the college then restructured its admission break-up for the academic year 2019-20, as shown in the table below:.CategoryTotal No. of seatsReserved (SC)GeneralInstitutional Preference Pool32527UT, Chandigarh Pool32527TOTAL641054.Clause 2B of the prospectus, which provided for domicile-based reservation, was then subsequently challenged by the petitioners before the High Court. These petitions led to the High Court’s order of April 2019, which is the subject of the challenge before the Supreme Court..Supreme Court reference.After hearing the submissions of all parties, the Court noted that the question regarding institutional preference had been decided by a three-Judge Bench of the Court in October this year. By this order, the Bench had upheld the institutional preference for admission to PG Medical Courses..It was further highlighted that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudhri & Ors. v. Union of India held that domicile-based reservation as a concept was not impermissible..Based on this and other decisions, the Bench in this case went on to observe that a generalised and blanket prohibition on domicile/residence-based reservation may not be workable in relation to the state quota seats of PG Medical Courses..“The peculiar feature in relation to the State Quota seats is that if some provision as regards domicile/residence-based reservation is not made, the only other method of filling up these State Quota seats would be by way of institutional preference. This would effectively result in entire of the State Quota seats going to institutional preference alone. Now, if the entire State Quota seats are provided for institutional preference alone, the consequence would be that only the candidates of the medical institutions in the State/UT would be filling up the State Quota seats; and such a consequence may not be permissible at all….…In the alternative, if only 50% of State Quota seats are to be given to that Medical College, the remaining 50% of State Quota seats would again fall in the pool of All India Quota because there is no other mode of filling up these seats. We find it difficult if either of such consequences could be countenanced.”.Having made these observations in passing, the Bench referred the following questions for determination by a larger bench:.whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible?If answer to the first question is in the negative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, what should be the extent and manner of providing such domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota seats?Again, if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, considering that all the admissions are to be based on the merit and rank obtained in NEET, what should be the modality of providing such domicile/residence- based reservation in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College?If answer to the first question is in the affirmative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is impermissible, as to how the State Quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, are to be filled up?.Thus, the Bench directed that the matters be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate bench. The interim orders passed by the Court will continue to operate in the mean time..Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appeared for the appellants, while Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta represented the respondents..Read the judgment: