NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the appeal filed by Telangana against the order of the state high court, ordering that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for four continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.
"The appeals of the state and the university are allowed, setting aside both the impugned judgments in the Writ Petitions filed by the students. The Writ Petitions filed by the students before this Court, as a consequence stand dismissed," said a two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
The apex court also upheld the 2017 Rules which mandated that a candidate must study fo four consecutive years in Telangana to qualify for the "local candidate" quota in MBBS and BDS courses.
The top court's bench, before reserving the judgement on August 5, had heard the detailed argument from both the sides, including the Telangana govt's lawyer, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and others.
While setting aside the Telangana High Court order that read down the state's domicile rule for admissions in medical colleges, the apex court 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.
"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," said the top court in its ruling on Monday.
The top court - while allowing the appeal filed by the Telangana against the order of the state high court - added that the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, provide 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 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 in the ground that they lived outside the state for some time.
Earlier, the Telangana HC held that the state’s permanent residents cannot be denied benefits of admissions in the medical and dental colleges only because they lived outside the state for some time.
Singhvi, defending the rule of the state, said that Telangana's domicile criteria were rooted in a govt rule backed by a Presidential Order. "Only the state has the authority to define the term permanent resident," he said and thereby sought appropriate directions and set aside the HC order.
Singhvi added that the HC had erroneously passed in 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.
He had submitted that the state has the authority to frame legislative competence to determine eligibility criteria for medical admissions. "The threshold becomes inevitable once a domicile rule is established," Singhvi said.
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 last four years up to Class 12 in the state, to admissions in the medical and dental colleges under the state quota.
Earlier in one of the hearings, the apex court wanted to know and a clarity as it 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 had questioned.
The other judge in the bench, Justice Chandran also had questioned the rules of the state as to how a student remaining idle in Telangana for four years could qualify, while one who temporarily moved away for educational pursuits could be excluded.
Telangana, in the appeal, alleged that the expansion of the definition, on the subjective satisfaction of the HC, would lead to frustrating the special provision under Article 371D, intended to confer a benefit to those local candidates in the state of Telangana who can be given preferential admission to the medical courses.
"The true test being not the claim of nativity by descent, but by their residence and their continued education within the state, culminating with the appearance in the qualifying examination within the state, establishing the real bonding and true integration into the local environment. This raises a valid presumption that they would continue working, after qualifying, in the locality, serving the people of the state," the state contended before the SC.
On the other hand, the respondents-students, however, urged that the definition of local candidate itself is gross and did not reckon the vagaries of life and employment of the parents, which takes the children away from the state, whose roots remain all the same within the state.