Concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system - Residence cannot be a ground for discrimination in matters relating to employment.

Supreme Court Invalidates Residence-Based Reservation in PG Medical Courses - Each citizen of this country carries one single domicile which is the 'Domicile of India' - The concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system. 

A State cannot grant reservation in public employment on the basis of residence in that State - Residence cannot be a ground for discrimination in matters relating to employment - A legislation can be struck down if it creates an unjustifiable classification, between residents of a State and all others. Admission in Educational Institutions, reservation at the higher PG level on the basis of 'residence' would be violative of Article 14.

Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, emphasizes merit over domicile, reinforcing equality in higher education admissions. In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court declared residence-based reservations for Post Graduate (PG) Medical Courses unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for merit-based admissions to uphold the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S.V.N. Bhatti, addresses critical questions about domicile and residence-based reservations, setting a precedent for educational institutions across the nation.

The case originated from the Union Territory of Chandigarh, where the Government Medical College and Hospital had reserved PG medical seats based on residence and institutional preference. This provision was challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which struck down the reservation policy for being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, a decision now upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, referencing past judgments such as Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, reiterated the principle that merit must be the primary criterion for admissions in higher education, particularly at the PG level. The judgment clarified that while residence-based reservations might be permissible to a certain extent in undergraduate medical courses, they cannot be applied to PG courses, where merit should be paramount.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, delivering the judgment, emphasized the importance of equality and meritocracy in higher education. He noted that residence-based reservation undermines the fundamental rights of students from different states, violating the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further stated that the concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system, asserting that all citizens have a single domicile-'Domicile of India.'

The decision mandates that state quota seats in PG medical courses must be filled strictly based on merit in the All-India examination, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations. However, the Court provided relief to students already admitted under the now-invalidated residence-based reservation, allowing them to continue their courses due to equity considerations.

This judgment is poised to have significant implications for educational policies across India, potentially influencing similar cases and prompting states to reassess their reservation policies in higher education. Legal experts and educationists have hailed the decision as a reaffirmation of constitutional values and a step towards ensuring equal opportunities for all students, irrespective of their state of residence.

Statutory provisions: Article 14, Article 15, Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2688371