The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down domicile-based reservation for admission to postgraduate medical courses within the state quota, saying it violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti observed that admissions to PG medical courses must strictly be based on merit, but allowed residential/domicile-based reservation to continue in undergraduate medical courses.

The apex court clarified that Wednesday’s judgment would not affect reservation already granted under the residence-based category.

"We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country gives us the right not only to choose our residence anywhere in India but also gives us the right to carry on trade and business or a profession anywhere in India. It also gives us the right to seek admission in educational institutions across India," the three-judge bench said in a judgment.

"The benefit of 'reservation' in educational institutions, including medical colleges, to those who reside in a particular state can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses…. But considering the importance of specialist doctors in PG medical courses, reservation at the higher level on the basis of 'residence' would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," it added.

The apex court said such reservation would infringe on the fundamental rights of several students who would become victims of inequality simply because they belonged to a different state.

The bench passed the verdict while setting aside Chandigarh's decision to reserve 50 per cent of the available 64 seats in PG courses at the Government Medical College and Hospital for candidates who themselves or their parents had resided in Chandigarh for five years.

“Yes, it is constitutionally invalid. In other words, providing for domicile or residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is constitutionally impermissible and cannot be done,” Justice Dhulia, who authored the judgment, observed.

Referring to the apex court’s judgments in Jagadish Saran vs Union of India (1980), Pradeep Jain vs Union of India (1984) and Saurabh Chaudri vs Union of India (2003), the bench said that merit could not be compromised at the PG level although residence-based reservation could be permitted to some extent in UG courses.

"The very concept of a provincial or state domicile in India is a misconception. There is only one domicile in India, which we refer to as domicile in the territory of India as given under Article 5. All Indians have only one domicile, which is the Domicile of India.

"A state cannot grant reservation in public employment on the basis of residence in that state. The exception carved out under Clause 3 of Article 16 enables only Parliament to make a law prescribing a requirement of residence for state employment. And there is a reason behind it," Justice Dhulia said.

The bench said 32 of the 64 PG seats at the Government Medical College and Hospital in Chandigarh were wrongly filled up based on residence.