Supreme Court upholds Telangana's 4-year residence rule to avail domicile quota in medical admissions

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Telangana High Court order that read down the State's domicile rule for admissions in medical colleges [The State of Telangana & Ors v Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors]. 

A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said that the rule mandating candidates to have resided or studied in Telangana for four consecutive years to avail the domicile quota for admission into the State's medical colleges, is not exclusionary, arbitrary and constitutionally invalid. 

"At the outset, we have to state that without a definition of what constitutes residence or at least without reference to a statute or rule prescribing the issuance of a residence certificate, the directions issued by the High Court would only result in an anomalous situation, making the reservation unworkable and open to a series of litigation," the judgment said.

It further noted that the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 provides domicile quota benefit to those candidates taken out of the State due to their parents' employment in defence services or public sector undertakings.

"The said proviso should allay and mitigate the grievances of those who claim that they were taken out of the State by compulsion of the movement of their parents outside the State by reason of employment in Government/All-India Services/ Corporations or Public Sector Undertakings constituted as an instrumentality of the State of Telangana as also defence and paramilitary forces who trace their nativity to the State, subject to the conditions thereunder. With only the said reservation, we uphold the Rules of 2017 as it stood amended in 2024," the Court held.

The controversy concerns Rule 3(a) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017.

In the rules amended on July 19, 2024, the government mandated that candidates must have studied or resided in Telangana for four consecutive years before the qualifying exam. 

Candidates who had completed their intermediate education in Andhra Pradesh and other neighbouring states, and had been denied the benefit of the local quota, moved the High Court against the same.

The High Court had in September 2024 held that a permanent resident of Telangana need not be required to study or reside in the State for four continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.

A Division Bench of Chief Justices Alok Aradhe and J Sreenivas Rao ruled in favour of the students and read down the rule. 

However, the High Court declined to strike down the amendment in toto, observing that such a decision would entitle students from all over India to admission in medical colleges of Telangana. 

"Therefore, we read down the Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024. It is held that the aforesaid Rule shall not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana. Thus, by reading down the Rule in the manner indicated above shall also be in consonance of object of Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India i.e., of making special provision to the people of different parts of State for admission to educational institutions," the High Court said.

The petitioners shall be eligible to admission in state medical colleges, if their domicile is of State of Telangana or if they are permanent residents of the State, it was ordered. 

The High Court also granted the State liberty to frame the guidelines or rules on when a student can be considered as a permanent resident of the State of Telangana.

This led to the appeal before the apex court.

Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy appeared for the State. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for individual appellants.

Senior Advocates PB Suresh, Raghenth Basant, Prakash Deu Naik and Advocate Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi appeared for the respondents.

Senior Advocate S Sriram represented an impleader.

[Read Judgment]