Domicile Quota in PG Medical Admissions: Supreme Court Verdict
Why in the news
The Supreme Court ruled that States cannot reserve postgraduate medical seats on the basis of domicile. The notes below lay out the concerns raised about the verdict.
Key facts
- Case: Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goyal (2025).
- Ruling: domicile quotas for PG medical seats are unconstitutional under Article 14 (equality before law).
- Reasoning: merit should prevail over a State’s freedom to decide.
- The NMC lowered the NEET PG qualifying percentile to zero in 2023, showing merit assessment has flaws.
Concerns for States
| Area | Issue |
|---|---|
| Medical workforce | Domicile quotas retain trained specialists locally; without them States must rely on unreliable outside hiring |
| Competitive federalism | States spend heavily on medical colleges and may cut funding if returns are not secured |
| Institutional fairness | AIIMS, PGIMER and JIPMER keep selection autonomy, but State-run colleges do not |
| Public health | Article 21 links the right to life with healthcare, so medical education is a public health matter |
Why merit is not absolute
- Entrance tests overlook regional gaps and socio-economic barriers.
- If such factors count in undergraduate admissions, exempting PG admissions is hard to justify.
- PG seats matter most because MBBS gives only general training, while specialists fill chronic shortages.
Earlier court views
- Cases cited: Pradeep Jain (1984), Jagdish Saran (1982), Om Rathod (2024) and Neil Aurelio Nunes (2022).
- Merit has a social context; service outcomes count more than exam scores.
- Domicile quotas were seen as serving social justice by widening healthcare access.
Exam angle
- Article 14: equality before law; Article 21: right to life.
- Regulator: National Medical Commission.
- Test: NEET PG.