NEW DELHI: While the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the Telangana government’s appeal challenging the high court striking down the state’s controversial four-year domicile rule for admissions to medical and dental colleges under the state quota, the arguments put forth by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the state made for interesting reading.
The Telangana government had moved the top court challenging the state HC’s order holding that the state’s permanent residents cannot be denied benefits of admissions in the medical and dental colleges only on the ground that they lived outside the state for some time.
Arguing before the bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, Singhvi, defending the rule of the state, argued that Telangana’s domicile criteria were rooted in a government rule backed by a Presidential Order. “Only the state has the authority to define the term permanent resident,” he said and urged that the HC order be set aside.
“Let’s take a student born and raised in Telangana, but who moves away briefly for just Class 10 and 11, perhaps to Kota for coaching. What about them?” the CJI asked.
Four-year threshold drawn by TG, Singhvi tells SC
To this, Singhvi responded: “The Telugu-speaking global community is enormous, among the top three outside India. Those individuals would enter through the NRI route. But once a domicile rule is recognised, a threshold is inevitable. We’ve drawn that at four years.”
Justice Chandran questioned the rules of the state, asking how a student remaining idle in Telangana for four years could qualify, while one who temporarily moved away for educational pursuits could be excluded.
It is notable that the state government, through the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, entitled only those students who have studied for the last four years up to Class 12 in the state, to admissions in the medical and dental colleges under the state quota.
Singhvi told the top court that the HC had erroneously passed the order. He argued that the HC wrongly held Rule 3(a) of the amended Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, to be interpreted to mean the respondents (candidates) were eligible for admission in the medical colleges in Telangana.
Singhvi argued that the state has the authority and legislative competence to determine eligibility criteria for medical admissions. “The threshold becomes inevitable once a domicile rule is established,” Singhvi said.
During the course of the hearing, the apex court sought clarity and asked certain questions to Singhvi on the issue. The bench gave the example of a Telangana-born student forced to move out due to a parent’s government transfer. “Should the child of a judge transferred to Bihar or an IAS officer posted in Delhi be disqualified from Telangana’s state quota, despite being born and raised in Telangana?” the CJI questioned.