Holding

Wholesale reservation based on domicile or residence is unconstitutional, but a reservation of up to 70% of MBBS seats (with at least 30% open on all‑India merit) is permissible, and for postgraduate courses reservation must not exceed 50% (none for super‑specialities).

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether state-imposed domicile or residence requirements for admission to MBBS and postgraduate medical courses violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equality. It held that wholesale reservation based solely on domicile is unconstitutional, but a limited reservation of up to 70% of seats (leaving at least 30% open on an all‑India merit basis) is permissible for MBBS admissions. For postgraduate courses, reservation may not exceed 50% and none is allowed for super‑specialities. The Court also extended the principles to dental courses and directed the Indian Medical Council to fix and periodically review the outer limits of reservation. The judgment applied to all states and union territories except Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, and it ordered that the directions take effect from the next academic year. The writ petitions and the civil appeal were disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether domicile or residence requirements for admission to medical colleges violate Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether reservation based on domicile can be justified under the equality clause of Article 14.
What is the permissible extent of reservation based on residence or institutional preference for MBBS admissions.
What is the permissible extent of reservation for postgraduate medical courses, including super‑specialities.
Whether the same principles apply to dental courses and to the states of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.15(1), s. Art.15(2), s. Art.16(2), s. Art.16(3), s. Art.19(1)(d), s. Art.19(1)(e), s. Art.5
Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957

Subjects

reservationmedical educationdomicileArticle 14equalitymeritaffirmative actionpostgraduate admissionIndian Medical Councilconstitutional law

Judgment

•
•
•
..
A.
942.

•
DR. PRADEEP JAIN ETC.

v
B
. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .. ETC.

22nd June,·1984
~

[P.N. BHAGWATI, AMAR~NDRA NAnl SEN A~D RANG.ANAtH
MISRA, JJ.]

. . . ' . .
'<;onstituti'on oflndia-A~t. 14-Equal opportunity-Reservation ofseati
;n medical colleges for M.B.B . S .. ari.d Post-graduate medical courses on basts of
don1ici'/e ot"resfdentiaf qualification' and institutional preference-By StateaNJ
·Union Territories-Jfva1id. Wluit should be· the e~tent of such reservation. For
D admission to M.B.B.S. and Higher courses-Merit o.nly consideration-Whetlier
and. when.departure can be ma~e. ·

Constitution of Jndia-Art.141-Judgment in this case. applicable to all .
Stales and Oni'on ·Terrfto·_•ies .except the States of ~ndhra:Pradesh and Jammu & .
• Kashmir. ·
. ,_

•
Constitution of India-Art .. 5-0nly one domicile-Domicile in lhe
territory of Jttdia_:_T'? say dom.icile in one Siate or another-Not rfght. .
•
Words and{Phrases- 'Domicile' - Concept of-·Basicil//y a legal coneept.

Words and Phrases-'Mertt'-Wftat is.
.I
In regard to admfs~ion to M.B B.s. and poSi~sr_aduatefD:edicaJ courses,
• a somewhat uniform and consisterit )?rach.c·e had· grown in almost all- tbe
States and Union Territories -to give.Prefereiice to those candidates· ·who had
· their doµiiCile _or permanent residence within 'the ~tate for ·a specified number
of years ·ranging 'Crom3to2<lyears arid· to 'those who had studied in
eduCational institutions in the State fof a contin).lous period varying from 4
to 10 years~ SOmetimes thC' requirement was phfased by. saying .that thC
G. app1icant must have his domicile in the State .. · The petitioners and the
appellant.who sought admission in M.B B.S. an_d M D.S. cours~s in._different
universities of different States and. ·Union Territory of Delhi chall'enged the "
"'residential requirement and· instiilltiorial preference on the grollnd of being
violative of Constitution. The questio.n which arose fo~ consideration was
whether, consistently with the 'conSt'itutional values, admissioris to a medical
College or any other institution of higher. _Je~rning situate in a state could be
H confined to those who bad their •domicile' within the State or who were
resident within the State for a specified n_utDber of_ years or can any reserva-
tion'in a<,!roi'S$ioni l>e mac!e fort}lemw as to give t!iem preceden~ over tho~·
PRADEEP JAIN v. tiNION 943
.l.
who dcrnot p.osseSs •domicile' or residential qualification within the State, A
.irrespective of merit.

· Disposing of the writ petitions and the civil appeal •

HELD: •
(Per f!hagwati and Ra!Jgana_th Misra, JI.)
The entire country is taken ·as one nation with one citizenship and every
effort of the ConstitutiOn makers is directed t9viards emphasizi"ng,, maintaining
a~d presetving 1he·utiity -and _in"tegfityot the_ nation. Now if India is one
nation_anCI there is ohl)r one_ citizenship, namely, citizenship of India; and
evefy citizen has a right to move Weety throughout the territory.of India and
. to reside and settle iii any part Of India, irrespective of the place where he is c
born or- the language which be speaks or the religion which J1e profesSes and
he is.guarari.teed freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the-
territory df ·Indi.i and is en~itled to equality before the law and equal
protection of the Jaw with other. citizen~ it} every part of the territory of Indi~,
it is difficult to see ho\V a citizen having his permanent home fn ~ariiilnadu or
speaking Tamil language can be regarQed as an outsider in Uttar Pradesh or- a
citizen having his .permanent home in Maharashtra or speaking Mar.athi D
l:inguage be)egarded as an outsider in Karnataka. He must be held ·entitled to
the s~rne .rights_as 'a citizen having his pern1anent home in :tJttar Pradesh or
Katnataka, as the ca~ may be. To regard him· as an outsider would- be to deny
him his constitutional rights and to derecognise the essential -unitY and
: integrity of the- country bY treating it a_s if'H were a mere conglomeration of •
indep~ndent States. [954F-H; 955A-13]
E
Article 15, clau~es. Cl) ana (2)-~ar discriminati~n on grounds no-t only.of
-·religion, race. caste or sex. but _also of Place of birth. Art. 16(21 goes further
and provides that no citizen ·shall, on groµn~s Only of religion, racei caste;
sex, desc~nt, place of· ~irth, residence or any of them be ineligible for or
-.· disctiminS.t~ against in. respect of, any employment or office under the ·state.
Therefore, it would aPt>ear that ·residential requiremen't would be unconsti-
. tutional as a.condition of eligibility ·-ror ·employmen"t or appointment to ati. F
office under the Sta_te which alsq c_overs an office under any !Ocal or other
. authority within the State or . any corporation, such as, a ·public sector
corporation which is an instrumentality _or agency Of the Staie. ·
[95SH ; 956A-C[
.I
Ramana DCaYaRram Shelly v. International Airport Authority of India & .G
0 rs., [19191 3 8 . • •. 1014, referred to,

. So far as_. admissiOns to an educa tlon 'institution such as a medical
co11e.ge are ~Oncernedi Ar.t. 16(2) has no app.lication. ·If, the.refore, there is ·
any resid_enpe requirement for admis:;ion "to a medical college in a State it
· cannot be conde~ned as unconstitutional on ground Or 'vioJation ·'of
. Art.• 16(2) .. Nor can Article 15 claus.cs (I) and Ql be invoked l'or invalidating
such residen:cc_~~qu~~eme~t because these clauses prohibit.discrimination on
ground of reside~ce and, as pointed out by this.· Court in D.P. Joshi v. State
944 StJi>REMil COURT REPORts tt98413 s.c.~.
A . of Madhya-Bharat,.reside~ce and place of birth are "two disti~ct cohceptions
with differenf connot~tipns both in Jaw and i!J fact", 'Th~ only provision of
the Constitution on th.e touch-stone of which such residence 'requiremen·t for
. 3.dmission to a medical college in a St"ate can be required to .be
tested is
Art. 14 and .that is precisely the challenge which falls to be considered in these
. writ petitions. [957C.E]
•
B l>.P. 'Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, [1955] 1. SCR 1215, referred to.

The word 'domicile' is to idenHfy the personal_ law by which an
individUal is ·governecJ-:· in_ respect of Various matters ·such_ as the essential
validit/ of a inarriage, the. ~ff~Ct o( mar-riagc On 'the proprietbry rights
of husband and wife, jurisdiction in divorce and nullity of marriage,
illegitimacy, legitima_tiOn and adoption and te";tamentary and inteState.
succession to.moveables. [957F-.G] , ·

Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) vol. 8, garagrap~ 421 & 422
and W.icker .v. Home>, [1858] 7 HL Cases 124, referred to.

Domicile is basicaIJy a legal concept, for the purpose of detern1ining
whiit ls the personal law applicable. to an individual "and even if an individual
D a
bas no permanen(bome, he_ is in~ested -with domicile by law. There are
two main classes of domicile: ddmicile of orig_in that is communicated by
Operation of law to each person at birth, th;tt iS tbe domicile ·of his fii.ther or
his mother according as he"is legitimate.or illegit!m'ate and-domicile of choice.
which every person of full age'iS free to acquire in substitu!ion ·for that_which ·
he presently possesses. The d~-miqiie of origin attache.s to an individual by.
• birth _w~iie· th~ .domicile of ·ch<;>ice is acquir~d by residence in a territory
E subjec.t to· a distinctive. lega_I _systC:rn 1 • wit~- the intention to. reside there
premanently Qr indefinitely·. Now the area bf domicile, w~ether it be
. ~ ' .
domicile of origin Or domicile of _choice, is the, ·count-ry which has the distinc..
1ive Ie&"al .systeI!l- and not ·_merely. the particular pJ<ice In the country-where
the in~ividual reside.s. [958B-E] ·

. 'F Whet tier there -can._ be anything like a d:oQ.Jicile in a state forming ·part
·of the· 'Union of India y -Tfi~ ~ons_titutio~ recognises only ooe domicile,
namely, do'rnicile in India. Art. 5 of the· Coqstitution is clear and explicit
on this point and it refers only to one domicile_, namely, udomicile in- the
territorY of India. "The legal ·system which prevails· throughout' the territory
of Jn:dia is,one single indivisible system. It would be absurd to sugaest that
the legal ·~ystem -varies fr_om State to Stat_e · or that' th.e legal sy'stem nf _3.
G State is different. ffom the legal systeffi of the Union of India, 'inerely
beCause with respec~ to the su~ject-s- Within their Iegisl"ative competence, ·the
States have.Power to make law's. The concept of 'domicile' has no relevance·
to tf.c tlpplicability of n1unicipal laws,_whether made by the Union oflndi'a
or by tht; States. 1t would hot, therefore, be _right to say that _a
citizen of India is domiciled in one state ·or_ another forming· part of the
Union of l~tdia. The domicile which _h_e has is only One domicile,
H namely~· dp1nicile· in .the territor.y of India_. When a· person who· is
permanentlj resi~ent in one State goe'I to anotlle-r State wifh-i°:tention to-'.
reside there peCJuanently or ,indefinitely, his domicile doeli not undergo any
PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION 945
change : he· does not acqufre ·a new do1nicile of chOice. I-lis domk~ile re1nains A
the same, naniely, Ir1d1an domicile. Moreover to think i~ tern1s ofst,ate
.domicile· wil! be h.ghly detri;nental to. the concept_ of Uni~y and integrity of
lndia·. [958H;. 959A; D; F-H]

The. argument of:the State Governments that the v.ord 'domicile' in 1he
Rules of some of the State Governments prescribing domiciliary requirement
B
for admission to medical colleges situate within their territories, is used not in
its technical legal s.ehse but in a popular sense as meaning residence and is
-intended to convey the idca·_pf intention to resi9C permanently or indefinitely,
is accepted. Therefo'tc, the ·cou-rt would also _inteipret the. word" 'don1ici1e'
used in. the Rules re~u1ating admissions to· medical colleges· framed by some of
the States in. the same loose sense . of permanent residence and not in the
te~hnical sense i"n whieh it is used.in: private international law. But even so the
Court wishes to warrt · against the use of the wOrd •d.ornicile' with reference
to States forming paft of the Union.of India, b~cause it is a word whicl;L is
likely to conjure 1;1p the notion of ·an indCpendent_ State and encourage
"in· a subtle and insidious manner the dormi:nt sovereign impul~s of different
regions. [959H; 960A-D]

0 D
D.P, Joshi v State of. Madhya Bharat, [1955) I SCR 1215 ·and
Vasundrv v State of Mysore, [1971} Suppl. SCR 381, referred to.

It iS. dangerous to use a feilll concept for conveying a.sense different
from that which iS ordinarily asso:::iated w,ith-itas a result of Iegaf usage over
the· years. Therefore·, it is strongly urged upon .thC Sta.te'Government io
E
exercise this wrong use of the expression 'domicile' from· the rules regulating
. adrnissioils to their educational institutions and particularly_ 1nedical colleges
and to desist frotn int!oduciog and maintaining domiciliary require1nent as a'
condition or' eligibility Jor such admissio!ls. [960E-G]

As the position ·stands today, there. i-s cq.nsiderable paucity of seats. in'·
medical colleges to satisfy the increasing dentand of students for admission F
and Some principle b3s therefore,-· to be evo-lved for making selection of
students for· admission .to the medical ._colleges and such principle· h'as tO be
in conformity with the requirement of Art. 14. Now, the pritnary imperative of
. -Art. 14 is equal opportunity for all across the nation for education and advance·
m::nt aud 'that cannot be made dependent· upon where a-~itizen resides.
The'philosoPnY and pr<igrnatism of t!Diversal excellence through equality of
G
opportunity for education and advancement across the nation- is.part of pur
found"ing faith and constituti.onal creed. .The effort inust, therefote, always -
he to select the best and m_ost meritorious i;;tudents for adinission to technical
iost!tutions .and medical colleges by provfding equal opportunity to all
citrzc-ns.in the country and no citilen can legitimately, without serious deteri·
mcnt to the· unity-arid integrity of the nation, be r~garded as an qutsider in
our C9riStit'utional set up .. Moreover,_it would be against national interest tO H
adn1it in: medical colleges or.other instit.,utions giving instruction in_ specia~ ·
~ities, less meritorious &tudents when more medtorious $t_udtilts are avaih1.bl~.

!
•

..
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i984l 3 S,C.!l.
A .\simply be;au~ ~the forme~ are permane_nt r~sidentS or ~esidents for a. ce:rta~n
· llumber' of years in th>t State whil~ the latter are not, though both categories
are citizens- of India .. Ex:Clusion of mofe .merit~rious studentS on the ground ~
.t.hat they are ~ot residen·t within the State 'iVOuld-be likely to promote sub-
standard candidates and bring about·f3H ii?: medical competence,_injurious fn
the long run to the very region [96JG-H; 964D-H]

B 'Jagdish Saran v Union of 1"dia, (1980] 2 SCR 831, P. Rajendr<in v. •
StaJe of Madras. [1968]2 SCR. 786 and .Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil
Nadu, [19711.2 SCR 430, referred to.

What is merit which ffiust govern the process of selection? It undou-
btedly consists Of a .high degree of .intelligence coUpled with a kef:n and
incis'ive mind,- sound ·knowlfdge of the basic subjects aad infiriite capa~ity for
c hard woik, but tha.t is not ~nough ~it also calls for a sense of sociai commit•
ntent and dedication to the Cause of the poor. Me-rit cannot be measured in
terms 'or marks alone, but· humani.syniPathies are equally inipo'rtant. The
heart is as much a. factor as the head in asses~ing the social value of a
member o(the medical-profession., This is <ilso an aspect wllich maY, to the
• limited ~xtent possible, be borne in mind while~ detern1ining merit for
seleCtion of candidates for admission t.o inedical colleges thotigh co~cedediy
D 1t would not b~ easy to do so, since it is a 'factor which is extremely difficult
. to judge_and n_ot easily suscepti~l;; to e~a1Uation.L967B-F; H; 968A]

Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, [1980] 2. SCR 8.JI, referred 10.

The . scheme of adrpission to t1tedical coileges may depart from the
-principle of selection bas::d on merit; ~here it is necessary to do. so_ for the
E purpose of bringifl.g <ibout .real eqUality_of ppportU:nity between those whO are
· unequals •. [969F]

Alzmedahad St. Xavier's COilege Soc;ety and: Anr. v 'State ofGujaYat.
[1974] l SCR 717 at 799. and Jagdish Saran v. Union of India. (1980) 2 SCR 831 ..
referred to.

F There are, ill the application.·of tills prin-Ciple, two,considerations which
! .
·appear to have weighed ~ith tlfe, Courts in . justifying· depaiture from the .
princ;iPle of selt!ction based On merit. - One is :~hat ~ay be called Staie
has by and large been. f~owned Upon by the couft and struck down as· invalid
· interest and the other is what may be·described as a fegion's claim of back""
wardness. [~69G] ·(
G D.P, Joshi v. State ?f.Madhya Bharat [1955] 1 SCR 1215, referred to ..

.Though intra•state discrjn1inatiort betWeen persons residenf- in
•different- distdcts .o~ re_gions of a State as !n ~Minor P. Rajendran's
caSe and Perukaruppan~s case the Court has in D. N. Chanchala's
c~s~ an.d othei similar cases Upheld institutional reservatidn effected
through univ~rshY-wi_se distribution _of seat$ for <icffnission t9 medical
H (:~lleges. 1'.he Court has also by 'its decision in D_,p; Josfli's case" ·a'nd
N. Jtasundhara's c<1se sustai·ned th._e constitutional vaHdity of reservation based
. c;in residence requirement within a Stat_e for the purp~se qf admission to
,

111\ADEEP )AIN .V. UNION 947
medical cJ\\eg3S, Th'" decisiom whioh all relate to admhsion to M.B.B.S. A
cotirse are binding upon the Court aiid it is therefore net pcssible for the
Court·to-heldt in the face of these decisions, ti1at residence rcquiremCnt in a
State for admission to M.B.B.S. course is irrational and irrelevant and cannot
.be introduced· as a condition for adh1issio!'.1 without violatirig the mandate of
equalitY of opportunity contained in Art. 14. The' C0urt is therefore of the
. view: tha·t a certain ·percentage· of reservation of .seats in the medical colleges
on-the basis of residence retjuirement may legitimately be xnade in_or-d~r to B
j,qualis-e opportunities for medical. admission on a broader. basis and to bring
about. rea:l and tiot formal, actual and not .merely IegaJ, equality. The pe~-.
ceiitage of reservation made on this count may also include.institutional
reserVationrot students passing the PUC _or pre-medical exainination-of the
same universHy or clearing the quilif)'ing examination fron1 the sch:ool systein
of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges iO. the.State and for
this purpose, there sbouJO be· no distinction ·between schools affiliated to
c
State· Board· and- ~chools affiliated to the. Central Board of Secondary
Edil'catioo. [979C-F; 981D-F]

P; Rajendran . v, State of Madras, [1968) i SCR 786,. Periakaiuppan v.
State of Tamil Nadu, [1971) 2 SCR 4)(}, D.N. Chanchala v, State of Mysore, ~l
[1971) Supp. SCR 608, D.P. Joshi v, State of Madhya Bharat, [1955J I SCR n·
1215, Vasundra v. State of Mysore, [1971) Suppl. SCR 381, Ahmedabad ·
St. Xavier's College Society and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, [1974] 1 SCC 717 at
799 and'State ofUttar Pradesh v. P. Tando.~, p975J 2 SCR 761, referred to.·

What should be the extent of reservation based on resid!ncc requif.e- ·
men.t and institutional preference ? r¥holesale reservation tnade by some of·
the State or Govcrnmeot<:1 on the basis ·of ~don\icne· Qr r:esid-ence requiremeilt E
.l. witl\in the State or the basis of institut.ion·at Pref~rence for students who have
passed the qualifying exam.ination.held by.the university or the State exc.lud-
fng all students not"satisfying this requirement, regardl~ss of merit, mu·st be.
condemned, and are unconsti t~tional and .void as being in voilation of. Art, 14
of the Constitution. [98lG; 98JE-F] •
Jagdish.Saran v. Union of.India [1980) 2 SCR 831, referred to. F

It is not possible .to pfovide .a catCJor.ical 3.ns~er to this question for,. as
pointed _out by the poHcy statement of the GOvernmenf of India, tbe extent
of such reservation would depend on seVeral factOrs including opportun'itiCs
(or professional edu_cation in that Particuhtr area,_ the extent of competition,
r level of education~l development of the area and other relevant factors. But
th.! Court is of the opinion that Such reservatio_n should in _no event exceed G
the outer limit 9f 70 per cent of the total number of open seats after ta\cing
into account other kinds of reservations validly made .. The Medical
Ec'"uc8.t.i0n Review Committee haS suggested that' th_e _outer litrii~ sboqld.not ·
cxc_eedli5 per cent but in the opinlon of the Conrt it would be. fPir a_nd just
tO fix the outer limit at 70 pei; cent ·This outer limit offes.ervaiion is being
~aid down . iil an atte1npt · to reconcile the apparently conflicting claim Or
H
equality and.excellence. It may be. made clear that this outer limit fixed by
the C~urt will l?e subject to any· reductio.n or attenuation which may be
•
'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.k.
' made by the Indian Medical Counci.l which·is the statutory body of medical
A
rractitioners whose· fun:;tional obligatiO:-is include setting-" Standards' fot
medical educ1tion and-providing ror Its regulation·and Coordinarion. ·This
outer limit fixed by the Court must gradually O\;er the years b~ progres.sively
redllcCd b_ut_ that is a task which w1>uld have to b3 perforincd by the· Indian
Medical Couricil. The Indiau ·Medicaf Council is directed to consider
within.a period of nine inonths f~;m· today whether the. o.uter iimit of 70 pe~ ·
B cent fixr;d by the Couft needs to be teduc-ed and jf the Indian Mcdi~a:I Council
determi:p.es.- a shorter outer 1in1it, it will"b~-binding·on tbe States and·the
Union-Territ-0rics. The Indian.MedicatrCouncil is also d1f.etted to subjeCt
·the outer limit·.s;) -nxed to !e;o.rrsideration at_ the end of every three yearS
but in no. ev'e'nt should the ·outer Ii mit exCeed 70 per c"cnefixed by the Court.
The resu!t'is th:i.t in any event at least 30 per cent-of the oPen seats shall be
availa.bl;;_ for admisSiOn Of students on all· lndia basis irrespective of the
c Sfa te or university from which theY con1e and Such admissions· shaU be
granted ··pur.ely -on merit on the basis of either·an India. Entrance Exami-
.rtation or ~ntrc:n~e exan1inatioh to be held by "the s"tate. ol c'ourse, it n.eed
.. not b~ added that even \\here res~rvation on the QaSis ofreSidence require-
rllent 01: ii.:s~itutia~al prefl!rence iS mad~ in-accordance wHh_-the direction~
given "in· this jud~intat; admis)ions 'frOrq the source or sources indicated by
such res:>ryation ·shall b; based only on mi:rit, because the object must be
D ··to select the best.and most 1ne:r;itorioi.Is students from within such source or,
sources. [98JG-H; 984A-H; 985A-B]
But different considerations mu.st prevail .while conSidering the ques-
tion _of fcse.rvation based ·on resid6n~e requirement within the State or on
fQstitutional ·p~eference for admission .f~ the post-graduate course~ ·such as.·
M.D., M.S. and the like. There. CxceUe"nCe c·annot be allowed tO be
E compiomised[by. vnyj 01 hrr consid~iations because that would be deterimenw
tal to the interest Qf the ·natio11. Therefore ~o fara:s admissions·topost-
graduate·eou1ses_, such··a·s M.S-. 1. M.O. ~nd t~e like arc CQncerncd~ it wollld
be_ Cmin~ntlY desirable not to provide for any · reservatiOn based on
residence requirei~e.nt \Vi thin the State or on instit~tion11 pr~ference: But
havit'lg reg4rd to. broader considerati_ons 'of equality of Opportunity and
institoti'onal continuity in educ.a:tioa which ha~; its own importance and
Value·, it is dtrected that though . residcfi.ce· requirement. within ·the State
shall not b(.: a ground for re~ervation· in a{Ln;ssions -to po~t~gr'adu1te cOurses_,
a certain p(!rc-enfage of seats may in the pres.~nt circumstance~,-be reservefJ,
on- tl~e-basis of ih~titutional preference in·· the sense that a stud.:nt Who has .
passed M BJl.S course· frOm ·a medical college -or university may be given
prefere-ce. for admission to the post-graduate cottrse in the same m~dical
co11eg~ or university but such rese_rvation on the basis of ios'hutional pre-
G. ference Should not in any· event exceed. 50 p·er cent of the total number of
open seats a'Vailable .for admi.ssi~O to the post-graduate course·. This_·outer
iimit.wli,ich-is being-fixed w;11 also b,- subjeCt to revision on the loY.er ·side by
the Indian Medical Council in the saine m.anner as in the case of ad~issiOns
to the M.B:B.S. course. B.ut e~·Cn ii) r~8:ar.d to,- admissions to 'the post-graduate
H course, it-is directed that so far as super soecialities- such·as neu~-surgerY
and ca-fdiologY a.r~ c0ncl!.rned, -there Should be no reservati.on at all .even on
the basis bf'ir.stitutional prefereri·ce and admissions _shou_Id. be granted purely.
on merit on all India basis. [985C-D;987F-H; 988 A-Bl

•
PRAl:>EEP iAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 949
What·h~s be.en said in regard to admissions. to the: M.B.B.S. a~d pOst· A
graduate courses must apply equally in relation to admissions to the B.D.S·
and M.D.S. courses. So for as admissions to the B:D.S: and M.D,S.
c·ourses are concerned, it will he the ·Indian Dental Council which ls the·
statutory body of dental pr~Ctitioners, which wiII have-to carrY out the
directions given to the Indiari Medical Council jn regard to admissions to·
M.B.B.S. and posf.:graduate courses. The directions giveq to the Indian
Medical Counci~ may therefore be read as_ :applicable_mutatis 1J1lltands to the B
Indiati Dental Council so·far a_s admissions 'to B.D.S. and M.D.S. courses
are concerned. [988C-E]
In the instant ca§e, the provisional adn1issions given to the petitioners
shall not be disturped but they shall be treated as final admissions. [988H]

(P~r Bhagwati, Amqrendra Nath Sen and Ranganath Misra, JJ.)
c
. The judgment shall. be implen1ented with effect from the next academic
year 19~5-86. Whatever .'.admission.s, provisionar or otherwise, have been .
made for the academic year 1984-85, sh!lll not be disturbed on ·the basis of
·the judgment. The judgment will not apply tq the States of Andhra Pradesh
arid Jarnmu &, Kashmir because there were special Constitutional.provisions
in regard to them which Would need independent consideration by th:s Court.
[991G-H; 992A]
D
(Per Amarendra Nath Sen, J,)
I ag-ree with the orders· passed by my learned brother Bhagwati J. and
also the directiolls given by him. [989A] . ·

The questi~n of cOnstitUtiona.i validity of re~ervat;on of seats w"thln
reasonable .Jimits:on the basis of residence and also the question of institU-
tion_ci.Hs~d rrServatio·n Of seats clearly,.appear to be conc!Uded by various
d~cision Of this-couri, as has bt;_cn r:ghtly. pointed out by my learned brother
in hfs- judgment in which he has referred at.1en£,th to these decisions. These
decisions are biodlng on this Court ·and are to be followed. 'Constitutional
validity of such fes~rvatioils within the 'reasonable liillit must, therefore, be
uph~ld: [989H; 990A-B] .
F
-The real question-is the questi~n of the extent of the limfr to which
such res~.rv"3.tions_ may. be considered to ·be reasonable. The question Or
reasonableness Of such. reservations must necessa;ily be d~tefmined with
reference to the·f.icts and circumStances of particular cases and.with re~r~.nce
. to the situation prevailing at any given time. [990C]

> On the questipn of admissiOn to post-graduate m.e:4ical courses I must·
confess that I )lave s"omemisgivings.iit niy mind as to the fuither.c1assification G
mti:de ·on the footings of super-specialities. Both iny learned bro1hers
however; agree on thiS,. Also in a broa.der perspective this classification ma;
serve the intef.ests of the nation.better, ·thol\ih interests of.individual ~tates
to. a sn1all extent .may. be effected.· This distinCtion in case of super-SJ:edalities
. proceeds on the basis,
that i~_
..
these very
r -
-important spheres
-
the criterion
-
for
. selectiof.1_ should be mefi_t only without any institutionalised rc.sCrvations or H
any reservation on_ the ground of residence. I also agree· that. the -~rders and •
directions proposed ill regard to. admission to M.jl.B.S. and post-graduate
•' 950 . SUPREME COURT R.EPORTS . (19$413 s.C.R.
..... A courses arb 3.Iso to be· read as applicable mutatls mutandis . in relation to
· admission to B.D.S. and MD,S: courses, [99QE-G]

CIVIL APPBLLATE/OR!<)[NAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
Nos. 6091, 8882-83, 9219, 9820 of l983 and 10658, 10761of19.83
& CMP. No. 2911.6/83 (in WP. No. 9618/83)
•8 (Under. article 32 of the Constitution of India)
With
Ci~il Appeal No. 6392 of 1?83
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 17th August, 198lofthe Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 1791.
C of 1983,
.· V.M. Tarkunde, A.K. Srivastava, S.K. Jain iind Vijay Hansaria,
f~; the petitioners. . · ·
· R. Venkataramanifor the Appellant in CA. 63 92/83.
· A.K. Ganguli, S.K. Baga .& N.S. Das Bahl for the Respondents
in CA. No. 6392 of 19.83.
P..P: Rao and A.K. Ganguli for .th; Delhi Universlty ..
SN. Choudhary for the Respondents (State of Assam)

K.G: Bhagat, Addi. Sol. General, Miss ,of. Subhashini & R.N.
· Poddar for the Respondent~Union of Indi~. · •
· Kapil Sibal and Mrs ... Shobha Dixit for the Resp 0ndent-
State qf U.P.
D.P. Mukherjee and G.S. Chatterjee for: the Respondent-·
State of West. Bengal.

G.S. Narayan.a; Ashivini Kumar, C.V. Subba Rao, Swaraj
• • Kaushal & Afr. M. Veerqppa, for tbe Respondent-State of .
Kariinataka.
· K. Parasarali and B. Parthasilrthi for the Respondent~State of
;) Andhra Predesh.
G
Yogeshwar· Prasad and.Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Respondent.
P.K. Pillai, for-the Respondent-'State of Kerala.
P.N.lvag, for the St;te of H.P.
P.R.. Mriduliand R.K. Mehta for tlie State of Oriss~ ..
• Alta/ Ahmed for the State .ofJ & K.
The following Jndgments were delivered
.•

•
PRADEEP JAiN v. UNiON (Bhagwati, J.) 951
BHAGWATJ, J .. This group of Writ Petitions raises a question A
of great ·national importance affecting admissions to medic~!
colleges, both at the. under-graduate and at the post-graduate
levels. The question is, whether, consistently w.ith the constitutional
values, admissions to a medical college or any other institution c)(
higher learning situate in a 'State can be confined to those who have
their 'domicile' within the State or who are resident within the State ·.
B
for a specified number of -years or can any reserviltion in admissions
be made fpr them so . as to give them precedence over those
who do' not possess 'domicile' or residential qualification within the·'.
State, irrespective of merit. · This ques.tion has assumed. consider·
able significance in the present day context, because we find that c
toi!ay. the integrity of the nation is threatened by the divisive.
forces of regionalism, iinguism ancl communalism and regional
linguistic and communal loyalties are gaining ·ascendancy in
' national life ancl seeking to tear apart and des"troy national inte'
grity. ·. We t.end to forget that India is one nation and we are all ·
Indians first and Indians last. It is time we remind ourselves what
the great visionary and buflder of modern India, Jawaharlal Nehru
said, "Who dies if India lives : who lives· if India dies?" We
milst realise, and ·this is unfortunately that many in public life tend
-iO. overlook, sometime~ out o_f ignorance of the forces of history
and ·sometimes deliberately with a view to promoting their self·
'· E
interest, that national interest must inevitably and for e,ver prevail
over any otlier considerations proceeding ·from regional, linguistic
or ,communal attachments. If only we keep these basic. considera·
tions uppermost in our minds. and follow the sure path indicated
by the founding fathers of the Constitution, we do not think the
question arising in this group of writ petitions should present (Illy F
difficulty 6f soluti?n .
. the history of India over the past centuries bears witness· to·
the fact that India was at no time a single political ·unit. Even
during the reign of the Maurya dynasty, though a large part of the
country was under the ~overeignty of the Mauryan kings, there ·
were considerable protions of· the territory which were under the G
rule · of independent kingdoms. So also during the Moghul rule
which 'extended over large parts of the territory of India, there
were independent rulers who enjoyed political sovereignty over the
--\ territories of their respective kingdoms. It is an .interesting fact
of history that India was forged into a nation neither on ·account
H
of a common language nor on account of the continued existence
\lf a sin~le political re~ime over its territories bu\
. .
on account of~
952 SUPRE~E c:ouR:f.REPORTS[l984) 3 s.G.ll.

. common culture evolved over the centuries. . It is cultural unity-
. something· ·more fundamental and en.during· that any other bond
which may unite the people of a country together-which has
welded this country into a nation. But, until the advent. of the
British. rule, it was not constfruted into a single political unit.
.B There were thr0ughout the period of history for which we have
fairly ~uthenticated.
. account,. various. kingdoms and principalities
which were occasfonally .. engageil in conflict with one- another.
During· the Br.itish rule, India became a com~act political unit .
having one single political regime over its entire territories and
a
this l~d to the. evolution of the concept of nation. This 9oncept
c ·ofone nation _took firm roots in the minds and hearts of the people ·
during the struggle for independence under the leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi ... He has rightly been callt!d the Father of the
Nati.on because it was he who awakened· in . the people of this'
country a sense of national consciousness ·and instilled in .them a
• high sense of patriotism. without which it is not possible to build ·
.D a country irito nationhoodc : ·By. the· time the Constitution of India ·
came to be enacted, insu·rgent India, breaking a new path of non·
violent revolution and fighting to free itself from the shackles of
foreign domination,. had emerged into nationhood and "the people
. ·of India" were inspired by a new enthusiasm, a high noble spirit of
sacrifice and above an, a strong sense of nationalism and in the
...E
Constitution which . they framed, .they set about the task of a strong
nation based. on certain cherished values for which they had fought.

The Preamble of the Constitution was therefore, framed with'
the great care and deliberation so that it reflects the high purpose
F and noble objective of the Constitution makers. The Preamble ' ·
declares in highly emotive words pregnant with. meaning and signi-
ficance :

"We, The People of India, having· solemnly resolved
to consti lute india into a Sovereign Socialist Seculat
G Democratic Republic and· to se~ure to all its citizens :
Justice, social, economic a:nd political ; ·
Liberty of thought, expression, belief; faith and worship ;

Equality of status and. of opportunity ; and to
promote .among them all •
H
Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and
the unit~ and integrity of the Nation ; ·
PRADEEP JAIN·v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 953

·In Our Constituent Assembly this twenty-sil\th day of A
November, 1949, do Hereby Adopt, Enact And Give To
Ourselves This Constitution."

These words embody the hopes and aspirations of the people
and .capture and reproduce the social, economic and political
B
philosophy underlying the t::onstituti6n and running through the
warp arid woof of iis entire fabric. It is 'significant to note that
the Preamble emphasises thatthe · people who have given to them-
selves this .glorious document· are the people of India, the people '·
of this great nation called India and it gives expression to the
· .resolve ofthe 'people of India to constitute India into a sovereig~. c
socialist secular democratic republic JDd to promote among all its
citizens fraternity assurmg the dignity of the .individual and t!Je
unity and integrity of 1he nation. The Constitution makers were
aware of the past history.of the c.ountry and they were also cons-
'Cious that the divisive forces of. regionalism, linguism and
communalism may <llle. day rajse their ug}y head and threaten the D
unity and integrity of the nation, particularly ill the context of the
partition of India and the ever present danger of the imperialist
forces adopting new strategems, apparently innocuo'us, but
calculated to destabilise India and re-establish their.hegem.ony and,
·therefore, they laid great· emphasis on the unity .and integrity of .
the nation in the very Preamble of theConstitution. Article l E
of the Constit.ution then proceeds to declare that Illdia shall be a
Union of States but emphasizes that though a ·uniOn of States, it
is still one nation with one citizenship. · Part 11 dealing with
citizenship recogni$eS only Indian citizenship : it does no(recognise
citizens11ip of any State forming part of the· Union. ' Then follow
F
Articles .J 4 and 15 which are intended to strike against discrimi-
nation. and arbitrariness in state aCtion, whether legislatives or
administrativ6. They read as follows :

... Article 14 : The State shall not deny to any persons
,equality before the law or the equal protention of the laws
G
within the territory o~ India."

"Article 15 : (I) The State shall not disc~iminate
against any Citizen ()D grounds only Of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth of any of them .
ff
. (2) . No ciilzen shall on. gronnds only of religion,
race, caste. s~x, place of birth or any of them, be siibjec\
954 . SUPREME COURT RBl'ORTS (1984) 3 S.C.R •
to·. any disability, liabilify, restriction or condition with
regard t6·-

. (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of
. '
, public entertainment; or.
B ,. . (b) the. use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places
so pl)blic resort ·maintained wholly or partly out' of'
.• State funds or d'edicated to ·the use of the general
public:

(3) Nothi~g in this article or in clause (2) of article
. 29 shall prevent the State from making any _special provi-
sion for .the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward classes o( citi!ens orfor the Scheduled Castes
· and the Scheduled Tribes."·

Article 19 (1) again recognises the essential nnity and inte- ·
grily. of the nation 'and ~einforces the concep(of one nation by
providing. in cl~uses (d) and (e) that every citizen shall have the
right to move freely throughout the territory of Jpdia and to
. reside and settle in any part of the. territory of India. Arti6le 301 ·
. declares that. subject to the, ·Other provisions of Part XIII, trade,
commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of.India shall .
be free. Then there are situations envisaged in. certain Articles
of the Constitution such as Artie.Jes 353 and 356 where the·
executive.power ofa State forming part of the Union is ~xercisable'
by the Central Government or subject to. the directions of the
Central Government. Thus, ·toe entire country is taken as·.· one
nation with ohe citizenship anc) every· effort of the Constitution
makers .is dire~ted towards emphasizing, maintaining and preserv-
ing the unity and integrity of the nation. Now if India is· one
nation and there is only one, citizenship, namely, citizensQ.ip of ·
India, -and every citizen has a right to move freely.throughout' the
territory of India and ·to resid.e and settle in any part of India,
· irrespective of the place where he is· born• or the language which
G.
he speaks or the religion ·which he professes and he is guaranteed
freedom of.trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory.·
oflndia and is .entitled to equ·aJity before the law and equal protec-
tion of the ):iw. with other citizens in every part of the. territory
of India, it iS difficult to see how a citizen having his permanent
home in Tamilnadn or speaking Tamil language ca·n be regarded )-
as an outsider in Uttar ~radesh or a citize!l h11Ving his perm"anent
hQIU~ in Maharashtra · or/speakin~ Marathi lantluage b¥
PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bltagwati, J.) 955

regarded as an outsider in KarQataka. He must be held A
entitled to the same rights as a citizen having bis permanent home
in Uttar Pradesh or Karnataka,. as the case may be. To regard
him as an oujsider would be to deny him his constitutional rights
and to derecognise the essential unity and integrity of the country
by treating it as if it were a mere conglomeration of independent
states.

But, unfortunately, we find that in the last few years, owing
to the . emergence of narrow parochial loyalties fostered by
interested parties with a view to gaining advantage for themselves,
a serious threat has developed to the unity and integrity of the
nation and the very concept of India as a nation is in peril. The
threat is obtrusive at some places while at others it . is still silent
·and is masquerading urider the guise of apparently innocuous and
rather attractive clap-trap. The reason is . that when the Consti·
tution came into operation, we took the spirit of nation-hood for
granted and p1id little attentfon to nourish it, unmindful of the
fact that it was a hard-won concept. We allowed 'sons of the
soil' demands to develop claiming s~ecial treatment on the basis
of residence in the concerned State, because recognising ·and
cnnceding such demands had a populist appeal. The result is
· that 'sons of the soil' claims, though not altogether illegitimate if
confinecf
. .
within. reasonable bounds,. are ·breaking asunder the
·unity and. integrity of the nation by fostering and strengthe'ning
E

narrow parochial loyalties based on language and residence within
a state. Today unfortunately, a citizen who has his permanent
residence in a state entertains the feeling that he must have a
preferential claim to be appointed to an office or post in the state
or to be admitted to an educational institution within the state F
vis-a-vis citizen. who has his permanent residence in another
state, because the latter is an outsider and must yield place to a
citizen who is a permanent resident of the state, irrespective of
merit. This, in our opinien, is a dangerous feeling which, if
allowed to grow, indiscriminately, might one day break up the
country into fragments, though, as we shall presently point out,
the principle of equality of opportunity for education and advance-
ment itself may justify, within reasonable limits, a preferential
policy based on residence. ·
1
. We may point out at this stage that though Article !5 (2) clauses
H
(! l and (2) bars discrimination on grounds not only of religion,
race, caste or sex but also of place of birth, Article 16 (2) gees

•
,.

956 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.
A further and provides that no dtizen shall on grounds only of religion,
race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them be
ineligible for or discriminated against in state employment. So far
as employment under the state, or ani local or other authority
is concerned, no citizen can be given preference nor can any
discrimination be practised against him on ihe ground only of
• residence. It would thus appear that residential requirement
would be unconstitutional as a condition of eligibility for employ-
• ment or appointment to an office under the State and having
regard to the expansive meaning given to the word 'State' in
Ramana Dayaram She tty v. International Airport Authority of India
c & Ors."\, !tis obvlous that this constitutional prohibition would
also cover an office under any local or other authority within the
State. or any corporation .. such as a public sector corporation which
is an instrumentality or agency of the State. But Article 16 (3)
provides an exception to this rule by laying. down that Parliament
may make a law "prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of
'D • employment or appointment to an office under the government of,
or any local or other authority, in a state or union territory, any
requirment as to residence within that state or union territory prior
to such employment.. " or app~intment Parliament alone is given the
right to enact an' exception to the. ban on discrimination based on
residence and that too only with respect to position.s within the
employment of a State Qovernment. But even so, without any
parliamentary enactment permitting them to do so,' many of the
State Governments have been pursqing policies of localism since
long and these policies-are ·now quite wide spread. Parliament
has in fact ex~rCised little control over these policies States. . The
only action whi,ch Parliament has taken under Article 16 (3) giving
p
it the.right to set. residence requirements has been the enactment
of'the Public Emp!Oyment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957
aimed at aboiishing all existing residence requirements in the States
and enacting exceptions only in the case of the special instanc.es
of Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Himchal Pradesh.
There is therefore at present no parliamentary enactment permitting
G
, preferential policies based on residence requirement except in
the case of Andhra Pradesh, Manipi1r Tripura and Himachal'
J
Pradesh where the Central Government bas been given the right
to issue directions setting residence requirements in the subordi-
nate servic~. Yet, in the face of Article 16. (2), some of the
H States are adopting 'sons of the soil' policies prescribing reservation

(I) [1979] 3 SCR 11)14
PllADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 957

or preference lxioed on domicile or reoi,lence requirement for A
employment or appointment to an office under the government of
a· State or any local oi other authority or public seCtor corpora-
tion OP any other .corporation .which is an instrumentality or
agency of th~ State. Prima facie this would s~em to be consiitu-
tionally impermissible though we do nnt wish to express any
definite opinion upon it, since it does not directly arise for B
consideyation in these writ petitions and civil appeal.

But, it is clear that so far as admissions to ·an educational
institution such as a medical college are concerned, Article 16(2)
has no application, If, therefore, there is any residence require- c
ment for admission to a medical college in a State, it cannot be
condemned as unconstitutional on ground of violation of Article 15
clauses (1) and (2). Nor can Article 16(2) be invoked for invalidaiing
such residence reqi1irement because these clauses prohibits discrimi-
nation on ground of pl~ce of birth and not on ground .of residence
and, as pofoted out by this Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of D
Madhya Bharatr'l, residence and place of birth are "two distinct
conceptions with different connotations both in law and in fact"'.
·The only provision of the Constitution on the touch-stone of.which
such residence requirment can be required to be tested is Article
14 and that is precisely the challenge which falls to be considered
by ns in these writ p_etitions. E

· Now there are in our country in almost all States residence
re9uirements for admission to a medical college. Sometimes the
requiremen! is phrased by saying that the applicant mmt have
his domicile in the State. We must protest against the use of F
the ward 'domicile' in relation to a State within the union of
India. The word 'domicile' is to identify th.e personal law by
which an individual is governed in respect of various ·matters
0

such as the essential validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage
on the proprietary rights of husband- and wife, jurisdiction in
divorce and nullity of marrfage, illegitimacy, l~gitimation and G
adoption and testamentary antl intestate succession to moveables.
'Domicile' as pointed out in Halsbury's laws of England (Fourth
Edition) Volume 8 paragraph 421, "is the legal relationship
between an individual and a territory with a distinctive legal system
which invokes that system as his personal law." "(Emphasis
supplied.) It is well settled that the domicile of a person is in .H

• (I) [1955] I SCR 1215
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.
A that country in which he either has or is deemed by Jaw to have
his permanent home "By domicile" said Lord Cranworth. in
Wicker v. Homcsl'' we mean home, the permanent home.' The
notion which lies at .the root of the concept 'of domicile is that of'
permanent home." But it is basitally a· legal concept for.the purpose ·
of determining what is the personal Jaw applicable to an
B individual and even if an individual has no permanent- home; he
is iuvested with a domicile by law. There are two main classes of
domicile : domicile of origin tllat is communicated by 'operation
of law to each person at birth, that is the domicile of his. father
cir his mother according as he is legitimate or illegitimate and
domicile of choice which every person ot full age- is free to
c acquire in substitution for that which he presently possesses. The
domicile of origin attaches to· an individual by birth while .the
domicile of choice is acquired by residence in a territory subject
to a distinctive legal system, with the intention to r.eside there
·permanently or indefinitely. Now the area of domicile, whether
it be domicile of origin or domicile of choice, is the country which
D
bas the. distinctive legal system a'Dd not merely the· particular
place in the country where the individual resides. This position
is brought out clearly and ·emphatically in paragraph 422 of
Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 8 wh_ere _it
is stated : "Each person who has, or whom the law deems to
:E have, his permanent home within the territorial limits of a single
system of law is domiciled in the country over which the system
extends ; and he is domiciled in the whole of that country even
though his·home may be. fixed at a particufar spot within it."
What woulabe the position under a federal polity is also set out
in the same paragraph.of volume 8 of Halsbury's Laws.of England.
F (Fourth Edition) : "In f~deral states some branches of law are
within the competence of the federal authorities and for these
purposes the whole federation will be subject to a single system
oflaw and an individual may be spo~en of as domiciled in the
federation as a whole ; other branches of Jaw are within the
competence- of the states or provinces of the federation and the
G individual will be domiciled in one state or province only.'' This ·
·being the true legal position in regard to domicile, let us proceed
to consider whether there .can be anything like a domicile in !I
state forming part of the Union of Ind4t.

ff ·Now it is. clear on a reading of the Constitution that it
PkADEEP JAIN v. UNION (/)hagwati, J.) 95<)

recognises only one domicile, namely, domicile in .India. Article 5 A
of the Constituti~n is clear and explicit on this point and it
refers only to one domicile,. nam<;ly, "domicile in the territory of .
India." Moreover, it must be remembered that India is' not a
federal state in the traditionai sense of · that term. It is
not a compact of sovereign states which have come fo-
gether to form a. federation by ceding a part of their sovereignty D
to the federal states. It has undoubetedly certain federal features
but it is still not a federal state and it bas only one citizen·
ship, namely, the citizenship of India. It has also one single
unified legal system which extends throughout the country. It is
not possible to say that a distinct and separate system of law
c
prevails in each State forming part of the Union of India. The
' leg~! system which prevails through-out the territory of India is ·
one single indivisible system with. a single unified justicing
system having the Supreme Court of India at the apex of the
hierarchy, which lays down the law for the entire country. It is
true that with respect. to subjects set out in List II of the Seventh D
Schedule to the Constitution, the States have the power to make
laws ~nd subject to · the 'over-riding power of Parliament,
the States can also make laws· witjl respect t.o subjects enumerated·
in List III of the Seventh Schedule to· the Constitution, but the
legal system unoer the rubric of which such laws are made by
the States is a single legal system which may truly be described . E
as the Indian Legal system. It would be absurd· to suggest that
the legal system varies from State to State or that the legal system
of a State is different from the legal system of the Union of India ;
merely because with respect to the subjects within their legislative
competence, the States jiave power to make laws .. The concept
of 'domicile' has no relevance to the app.licability. of. municipal F
laws, whether made by the Unioµ of India or by the St.ates. It
~·.-
would not, therefore, in our opinion be right to say that a citizen
of India is d.omiciled in one state or.another forming part of the
Uni.on of India. The domicile which he has is only one domicile,
namely, domicile in the territory of India. When a person who
: is permanently resident in one State goes to another State with G
intention to reside there jlermanently or indefinitely, his domicile
does not undergo any .change : he does not acquire a new domicile
of choice. His domicile remains the same, namely, Indian domi-
cile. We think it highly deterimental to the concept of unity
and integrity of India to think in. terms of State domicile. It ·is H
true and there we agre: with the argument advanced cin behalf of
the State Governments, that the . word 'domicile' in the Rules of
960 S\JPREME COURT REPORTs [1984) 3 S.C.R.
. .
some of the' State Governments prescriqing domicilary requirement
for admission to medical colleges situate .within their territories, is
used n·oUn its technical legal sense but ·in. a popular sense as
meaning residence and is intended to convey tbe idea of intention
to reside permanently or indefinitely. That' is, in fact the sense
in which the word 'domi~ile' was under~to'od by a 'five Judge
B Bench of.this Court in D. P. Joshi's case (supra) while construing
a Rule prescribing capitation fee for admission to a medical
cqllege in the State or. Madhya Bharat. and it was in the same
. sens~ that word 'domicile' was unde,stood in Rule 3 of the
Selection Rules made by the State of Mysore in Vasundra v. State
of MysoreJ'l W~ would also, therefore, interpr.et the word
c 'domicile' used in the Rules regulating admissions to medical
colleges framed by some of the State9' in the same loose sense of.
permanent residence .and not in the technical sense .in which it
is used in private international law. But even so we wish oo
warm against the use of the word 'domicile' with reference to
States forming part of the Union ..of India, because· it is a word
D which is likely to conju;e up'the notion of an independent State
and encourage 'in a subtle and insidious manner the dormant
~overeign impulses of different regions. We think it is dangerous
to use a legal concept for conveying a sense different from that
which is ordinarily associated with it as a result of legal usage
E · over the years. When we use a word which has come to represent
a: coi:;cept or idea, for conveying a different .concept or idea it is
easy for the.mind to slide into an assumption that the verbal
identity is accompanied in all its sequences by identity
of meaning, The concept of domicile if used for a purpose. other·
tban its legitimate purpose may give rise to lethal radiations which
F may in the lorrg run tend to break up the unity and integrity of
the country. We would, therefore, strongly urge upon the State
Governments to exercise this wrong use of the expression 'domi-.
cile' from the rules regulatfog admissions to their educational '·'
. institutions and particularly medical colleges and to desist from.
introduc!ng and maintaining domiciliary requirement as a condition·
~f eligibility for such admissions. ·
We may now proceed· to consider whether .residential require-
ment or institutional preference in admissions to techt;iical and
medical colleges can be regarded as · constitn.tionally permissible.
Can it stand the test of Article 14 or does it fall foul of it and )-
ff must be struck down as constitutionally invalid·.. It is not pos~ible
to answer this qt~estion byJ a si1nple "yes,' or "no". It raises a
--- ~- ·----~-- -------- .
(I) [1971} Suppl. SCR 381
•

PRADEEP JAIN_.v. UNIO.~ (Bhagwaii, J.) 961

delicate but cJmplex problem involving consideration of divers
factors in tbe light of varying social and economic facts and calls
for a bitlanced and harmonious adjustment of competing interests.
But, 'before we embark upvn a consideration of this quei;tion, it
· m~y be pointed out that there is before us one Civil Appeal,
namely, C.A.No.6392 of 1983 filed by Rita Nirankari and five writ
petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos.8882 of 1983, 8883 of 1983,.
9618 of 1981, 10658 of 1983 and 10761 of 1983 filled by Nitin
Aggarwal, Seema Garg, Menakshi, Alka Aggarwal and Shalini
Shailendra Kumar respectively. These civil appeal and writ
petitions relate to admissions to medical colleges affiliated to the
Delhi University and situate in the Union Territory of Deihi.
Then we have writ petition No. 982 of 1983 filed by Dr. Mrs.
c
Reena Ranjit Kumar and writ petition No. 92.19 of 1983 filed by
Nandini Daftary which relate.to admission to the M.D.S. Course
and M.B.B.S. course respectively of Karnataka Universjty. We
have also writ petition No. 6091 of 1983 filed by Dr. Pradeep Jain
seeking admission to the M.D.S. course in King George Medical D
College, Lucknow affiliated to 'the Lucknow University. When
these writ petitions and civil appeal were admitted, we made
interim orders in some of them granting provisional admission to
the petitioners .and we may make it clear that wherever we have
-granted provisional admissions shall notbe disturbed; irrespe.ctive
of the result of these civil· appeal and writ petitions. We may E
also point out that since these civil appeal and writ petitions
challenged the constitutional validity of residentfal require-
ment and institutional preference · in regard to admissions in
medical colleges in the States of Karnataka and Uttar Prade>h
and the Union "Territory of. Delhi and we were informed that it
is the uniform and "consistent practice in almost all States to
provide for such residential requirement or institutional preference
we directed that notices of lhese civil appeal and writ petitions

'
may be issued ro the Union of India and the,States of Karnataka,
Kerala, ·Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab;
Rajasthan, Tamilnadu .. and West Bengal and the State Govern-
ments to which such notices are issued shall file their 'counter G
•affidavits dealing ii! parti,ula~ .with the que~tion of reservation in
admissions on the basis of domicile or residential requirement
within. two weeks from the date of service of such notic.es. Some
_j
of the State Governments could not ftle their · counter affidavits
within the time granted by us and they accordingly made an
H
application for extension of time and by an order dated 30th
August, 1983 we extended the time for filing of counter affidavits
962 SUPREME COURT REPOR ts [1984] 3 s.c.R..

and directed the State Governments to set out in their counter
affidavits facts and figures showing as to ~hat is the procedure
which is being followed by them so far as admissions to medical
colleges in their States are concerned. It appears that most of· the
state Governments to whom notices ~ere issued filed their counter
affidavits and though no notice was directed to be issue<) to the
B State of Himachal Pradesh, the Goverpment of that State also
filed a counter affidavit. The Delhi University in its counter affi·
·davit gave a brief synopsis summarising the domicile or residential
requirement or institutional preference followed by· each State
Government for admission to the medical colleges situate within
its territory. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present judge
ment to reproduce in detail the precise domicile or residential
requirement or institutional preference ·adopted and prevailing in
different States in regard to admissions to medical colleges. Suffice it
to state that for admission to M.B.B.S. course,' domicile. or perma•
nent residence .is required in some States, residence for a specified
numb.er of years ranging from three to twe"nty years is required in
D
some other States while in a few States.the requirement is that the
candidate should have studied ill an educationai institution in
the State for a continuous period varying from four to ten years
or the candidate should be a bona fide resident of one State and
in case of admssions to M.D.S. Course 'iµ Uttar Pradesh the candi·
E date should be either a citizen of India, domicile of whose father
is in. Uttar Paradesh and who himself is domiciled in . Uttar
Pradesh .or a citizen · of India, domicile of whose father
may not be in Uttar Pradesh but who himself has resided .in Uttar
Pradesh for not less than five years at the time of making the
application and so far as admissions to M.D.S. Course in Karnataka
I' are concerned, the candidate should have . studied for at least
five years in an educational institution in the State of Karnataka
prior to his joining B.D.S. Course. The position in regard to
admissions in medical colleges in the Union Territory of Delhi is a
a
little different, because there, out of total of 410 seats available
G
for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the three medical colleges
affiliat~d to the Delhi University, }48 are reserved seats and 262 are ·
non-reserved seats and for fiiling in the 262 ·non-reserved seats, an"
entrance examination is held and the first 50 seats are filled from·
amongst the eligible candidates who pass the entrance examin~tion
in order of merit and the remaining 212 seats are ~lied, again on
;-
merit, but by candidates who have passe_d t(leir qualifying exami-
nation from the schools situate in the Union Territory of Delhi
. J.

PkADEEl> JAIN v. UNION(Bhagwati,-J,l 963
only. It will thus be seen that in almost all States and Union A
Territories admissions to medical colleges are based either on·
residence requirements or on institutional preferences. The
question is ;,,hether such reservations or preferetlces are consti-
tutionally valid.when tested on the touch-stone of Article 14. •
There can be no doubt that the demarid for admission _to
medical colleges has over the last .two decades increased enor-
. inously and outstripped the availability of seats in the medical
•
colleges in the country. Today large numbers of young men and
women are clamouring to get admission in the medical colleges not
only because they can find gainful employment for themselves but
they.can also serve. the people and the available ~eats in the medical
colleges are not sufficient to meet the increasing demand. The
proportion of medical practitioners to tlie population is very low
compared to some other countries and there is considerable unmet
need for medical services. It is possible' that in highly urbanised
areas, there may be a surfeit of doctors but there are large tracts
of rural areas throughout the country where competent and ade-
quate medical services are not available". The reason partly is
that the doctors who have been brought up and educated in urban
areas or who are trained in medical colleges situate in cities and
big towns acquire an indelible urban .slant and prefer not to go to
the rural areas, but moie- importantly, ·proper and adequate
facilities are not provided and quite often even necessary medi-
cines and drugs are not supplied in rural areas with the result
that the doctors, even ·if otherwise inclined to go to rural
·areas with a view to serving tjie people, find that they cannot be of
any service to the people and this acts as a disincentive against
doctors setting down in rural areaeyi. What is, therefore, necessary
F
. is to set up proper and . adequate structures in rural areas where
competent medical services can be provided by the doctors and
some motivation must be provided to the doctors servicing those
areas. But, as the posi.tion stands today, there is considerable
paucity of seats ·in 1'.iedical colleges to satisfy the increasing
demand of students for admission and some principle has, there· G
fore, to be ·evolved for making selection of students for admission
to the medical colleges and suGh principle has to be in conformity
with the requirement of Article 14. Now, the primary imperative.
of Article 14 is equal opportunity for all across the nation for
education and advancement and,· as pointed out by Krishna Iyer,
J. in Jagdish Saran v. Union of Indial'l "this has burning relevance H
- - ( 1 } (1980] 2 S.C.R. 83!.
SUPl!EME cotiu REPOI! ts

A
tu our times when the country is gradually being broken up into
fragments by narrow domestic walls" by surrender to narrow
parochial loyalties. What is fundamental, as an· enduring value of
our polity is guarantee to each of equal opportunity to unfold the
full potential of his personality. Any one anywhere, humble or
B h_igh, agrestic or urban, man or woman, whatever be his language
..or religion, place of birth or residence, is entitled to be afforded
,
for
~qual ·chance for admission . to any secular "educational course
cultural growth, training facility, specialitY"or employment. It
would run counter to the basic principle of equality before the
Jaw and equal protl'ction of the law if a citizen by reason of his
c residence in State A, which ordinarily in the commonality of cases
would be the result of his birth in a place silua'.e within that
State, should have opportunity for education or advancement.
which is denied to. another citizen because he happens to be
resident in State B. It is axiomatic that talent is not the monopoly
of the resident of any particular State; it is more .or less evenly
D . distributed and given proper opportunity and env.ironment, every .
one has a pr.aspect of rising to the peak. What is necessary is
equality of opportunity and that cannot he made dependent npon
where a citizen resides. If evety c_itizen is afforded equal oppor-
tunity, genetically and environmen~ally, to ~evelop his potential
he will be able in his own ·way to manifest his faculties fully
leading to all rnunQ. improvement in excellence. The" philosophy
•
and pragmatism of universal .excellence through equality of oppor-
tunity tor cducaction· and advancement across the- nation is part
of our· founding faith and constitutional ·creed. The effort must,
therefore, always be to selec.t the best and mJst meritorious
F ·students for admission to technical institutions and medical
colleges by providing equal opportunity to all citizens in the
' country and no citizen c~n -legitimately, without serious deteriment '
(
to the unity and integrity of the nation, be regarded as an outsider
in our constitutional set up,. Moreover. it would be against
national interest to admit in medical colleges or other institutions
G· giving instruction in specialities, less meritori8us students when
more meritorious students are available, simply ·because
the former are pe.rmanent residents or .residents for a
certain' number of years in the State While the latter are
not, though both categories are citjzenA of India. Exclusion
H of more meritorious students on the grou1td that they are not
resident within the State would be likely. to promote sub-standard
candidates and bri~g about fall in medical competence, injQrious ·
PRAOEEP ·JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 965

in the long run to the very region. "It is no blessing to inflict A
quacks aild medical midgets on people by whole-sale sacrifice of
taient at the thresh-hold. Nor can the very best be rejected from
admission beca.use th~t will be a national loss and the .interests of·
no region can be higher than those of the nation." TP.e primary
consideration in selection af candidates for admission.to the
medical colleges must, therefore, be merit. The object of any B
0

rules which may be made for regulating admissions to the medical
colleges must be to secure the best and most meritorious students
1'his was the consideration which weighed with the Court in
Minor f. Raj~ndran v. State of Madras('\ in straiking down a rule
made by the State of Madras allocating seats in medical colleges c
·on district-wise basis. Wanchoo, C.J. Speaking on behalf of the
C.onrt, obse·rved:
"The question whether distriCtwise allocation is
yiolative of Art. 14 will'depend on what is the object tb
be achieved in th.e matter ,of admission to medi ·al
colleges. Considering the fact that there is a large num· D
. ber of candidates' than seats available, selection has got·
to be · made. ' The object of selection can orily be to
secure the best possible material for admission 'to colleges
subject the provision for socially and educationally back·
ward classes. Further whether selection is from the
E
socially and educationally backward classes or from the
general pool, the object of sele<;tion must . be to secure
tbe best possible talent from the two · sources. · If that jg
the object, it must necessarily follow th)lt that object
·w0uld be defeated if seats are allocated district by dHrict.
It cannot be and has not been denied that the ·oltject of F ~-
selection is to secure the best pos~ible talent from the two •
sources so that the country may have the best possible
doctors lf that is the object, that argument on behalf
of the petitioners appellant is that tbat object cannot
possibly be served by allocating seats districtw)se. · It is
true that Art. 14 does not forbid elassification, but the G
classification has to .be justified on the basis of the nexus·
between the classification and the object to be achieved,
even assuming that territorial classification may be a reaso-
nable cl ssification. · Tfie fact however that the classifi:
cation by itself 1s reasonable is µot enough to support it
unless there is nexus betwe.en the classification and the H
------,-
(!) [1968] 2 S,C.R. 786.
966 SUPRFME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.Jl.

object to. be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be
• achieved in a case of the kind with which we are concer"
ned is to get the best talent for ad\)lission to professional •
colleges, the allocation· of seats districlwise has no reaso·
nable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything
such allocation will result in many cases ill the object
being destroyed, and if that is so; tbe clas!Oification, even
if reasonable, would result in discrimination, inasmuch as
better ql,la!ified candidates from one district may be
rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts
may be admitted from either of the two sources."
c Then again in Periakaruppan v. State. of Tamil Nadu! 1\, the sli:me
consid.eration prevailed with tbe Court in striking down the
scheme of selection of candidates for admission to medical
colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the ye!lr 1970- 71. It was
a unit-wise scheme under which the medical colleges in the city
of Madras were constituted as one unit and each of the· other
medical colleges in the Mofussil was constituted as a unit and
a separate · selection. committee· .was set up for each ·of
these units. · The intending applicants wete asked to apply to ·.
any one. of the committees but were advised to apply to the
committee ne1rest to their place of residence a,nd if they applied
fo more than one committee, their applications were to be for-·
warded by the Government to only one of. the committees. The
petitioners who were unsuccessful in getting admission, challenged
the validity of this unit-wise scheme and contended tJtat the unit·
wise scheme infringed Article 14 of the Constit11tion, inter alia,
because the applicants of some of the unils were in a better
• F position rtlan those who applied to other .units, since the. ratio
between the applic.ants and the number of seats in each unit
vari~d and several applicants who secured lesser marks than the
petitioners were selected merely because their upplic~tions .came
to .be considered in other units,, This challenge was upheld by
tbe Court and Hegde, J. speakiag on be.half of the Court observed :
"We shall first take up the plea reg~rding the division
of medical seats on 11nitwise basis. It .is admitted that
minim!lm marks required for being selected in some unit
is less than.in the other. units. Hence prima facie the
scheme in question results in discrimination against some
of the applicants. Before a classification can be justified
' . ~ ~ . '
it inust be based on an objective criteria ancl furt!\er it
(I) [~911J 2 ·s.cR 430.
) PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 96~

must have reasonable nexus with the object intended "to
be. achieved. The object intended to be achieved in
the present case is to select the best candidates for being
admitted to Medical Colleges. That object cannot be
satisfactorily achieved by the method adopted."
These two decisions do not bear directly on the question raised
before us, _namely, whether any reservation can be. legitimately .B
made in admissions to medical colleges on the basis of residence
requirement within the State or any _institutional pre,fererice can be
given students who have passed" the qualifying examination held
by the same university., They deal with two .specific instances
of intra·state dis.crimination between citizens residiQg within the
same State and strike down such discrimination as violative of
c
Article 14.on the ground that it Ins no /ational relation to the
object of selection, namely, to get the best and most meritorious
students and, in fact, tends to defeat such object, _But, ·in taking
this view, they clearly and categorically proceed on the basis of
the principle that t_he object of any valid scheme of_ admissions .D
. must be to "select the best candidates for being admitted to medical
colleges" and that if any departure is to be made "from the
principle of selection on the basis of merit" it must be justified
on the-touchstone of Art. 14.
But let us understand what we mean when we say that
selection for admission to medical colleges m'i1st be based on E
merit. What is merit which must govern the process of selection ?
It undoubt~dly cons_ists of a high degree of intelligen£e coupled
with a . keen and incisive mind, .sound knowledge of the basic
• subjects - and infinite· capacity -for hard work, but that Js not .
enough ; it also calls for a sense of ~ocial commitment and dedica ..
tion to fye cause of the poor. We agree with Krishna Iyer, J. when F
he says in Jagdish Saran's case (s_upra) : "If potential for rural
service or aptitude for renderin11 medical attention among back-
ward people is a criterion ef merit-and it, undoubtedly, is in a
land of sickness and misery, neglect and penury, wails and tears-
theti, . surely' belonging, toa university catering to a deprived :G
region·is a plus point of merit. Excellence· is composite and the
heart and.its sensitivity are as precious· in the case of educational
values as the head and its creativity and social medicine for the
common people is more relevant than peak performance in Freak
cases." Merit cannot be measured in terms of marks alone, but
human sympathies are equally important.. The heart is as much H
a factor as the head in assessing the social, value of a member of
he l)lcdical profession. This is also an aspect w_hich ma~, tQ
•

968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 984) 3 S.C.R.

A ·. the limited extent pos~ible, be borne in m·ind while determining
.merit for selection of candidates fot admission to medical colleges
though ·concededly it would-not be easy to do so, since jt is a·
factor which is extremely difficult to judge and not easily suscepti,
ble to evaluation.
B
We may now proceed to consider what are the circumstances
in which departure may justifiably be made from the principle of
selection· .based on merit.' Obviously, such departure can be
justified only on equality-oriented grounds, .for whatever be the
principle of selection
•
fotlowed for making admissions
' #
to medical
•

c colleges, it must satisfy the test·of equality. Now the concept of
equality .under the Co.nstitution is a dynamic .concept. It takes
within its sweep ev·ery pr.ocess of equalisation and protective
discrimination. Equalitv mmt not remain mere idle incantation
butit must become a: livin.g reality for the large masses of people.
In a hierachical. sooiety with an indelible ·feudal stamp and
·incurable actual inequality, it is absurd to suggest that progressive
measures to eliminate group disabilities and promote collective
equality are entagonistic to equality on the ground the every
individual· is entitled to equality· of opportunity based p~rely on
merit judged by .the mark. obtained by him .. We cannot counte·
• nance such a suggestion, for to do so would niake that equality
E clause sterile and perpetuate· existing inequalities. Equality of
·opportunity is. not simply a matter of legal equality. I ts existence
depends riot merely on the absence -of disabilities but on the
presence of abilities. Where, therefore, there is inequality, in
fact, legal equality always tends- to accentuate it. What the
fam~us poet Willian Blanks said graphically is very true, namely,
F "One law for the Lion· and the Ox is oppression," Those who
are unequal, in fact, can.not treated by identical standards ; that
may be equality in law but it would certainly not be real equa·lity.
It is: therefore, necessary to take into account de facto in equalities
~hich exist in the society and to take affirmative action by
G - way of giving preference to the. soc_ial!y and economically dis-
advantaged persons or inficting handicaps on· those more advan-
tageously placed, in order to bring about real ·equality. Such
affirmative action thourh apparenlly discriminatory is calculated
to produce equality. an a broader basis by eliminating de facto
inequalities and placing the weaker sections of the community on
a footing of equality with the stronger and more powerful section,
so that each member of the ·co Jl'munity, whatever is his births
occupation or social position may enjoy <qua! opportunity of
PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 969
•
using to the full his natural endowments of physique, of character A
and of intelligence. We "may in this connection usefully quote
what Mathew, J. said in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society
., and Anr. v. State of Gujarat1 1l :

"It is obvious that "equality in law precludes discri-
B
mination of any kind; whereas equality, in fact, may
involve the necessity of differential treatment in order
to attain a result which establishes an eq1;1ilibrium between
different situations."

We cannot, therefore, have arid equality which does not take
into account the so<;ial and economic disabilities and inequalities
from which large masses of people suffer in. the country ..· Equality
in Jaw must produce real equality ; de ljure equality must ulti-
mately find its raison d' etre in de facto equality. The State must,
therefore, resort to compensatory State action for the purpose
of making people who are factually unequal in their wealth, .
0

education or social environnient, equal in specified areas. The
State must, to use again t!:ie words of Krishna Iyer. J. in Jagdish
Saran's case (supra) weave those special facilities into the web
of equility which, in an equitable setting provide for· the weak
and promote their levelling up so that, . in the long-.run, the
community ~t large may enjoy a general measure of real equal E
opportunity equality is not negated or neglected' where special
provisions are geared to the 'large goal ·of the disabled getting
over their disablement consistently with · the general. good and
individual merit." The scheme of admission to medical colleges
may, therefore, depart from the principle of selection based on
merit, where it i,s necessary to do so. for the purpose of bringing F
about" real equality· of opportunity between those ·who are
·uMquals.

There are, in the applipation of this priridple, two consi- .
derations which appear to have weighed with' the Court in G
justifying departure from the principle of selection based on merit.
One is what may be called State interest and the othe~ is what
may be described as a region's claim of backwardness. The
legitimacy of claim of State interest was recognised explicitly in
one of the early decisions of this Court in D.P. Joshi's case (supra)
The Rule impugned in this case }Vas a Rule made by the State of H
. --',_
(1) [1974) l sec 111at799.
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

Madhya Bharat for admission to the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial
Medical College, Indore providing that 'ho capitation fee should
be charged for students who are bona fide residents of Madhya
Bharat but for other non-Madhya .Bharat students, there should
be a capitation fee of Rs. 1300for nominees and R!;; 1500 for •
oibers. The expression bona fide resident' was defined for the
purpopse of this Rule to mean inter a/ia a citizen whose original
domicile was in Madhya Bharat provided he had not acquired a
domicile elsewhere or a citizen whose original .domicile was not in
Madhya Bharat but who. had acquired a domicile in Madhya.
Bharat and had resided there for not Jess than five years at the
date of the application for admissioi;i. The constitutional vali·
dity of this Rule was challenged on the ground that it discrimi·
nated between students who were bona fide residents of .Madhya
Bharat and students who were not and ~ince this discrimination
was based· on residence in the State of Madhya Bharat, it was
violativ.e of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court by a
majority of four against one held that the Rule was not discrimi·
· natry as being in contravention of Article 14, because the classi·
fication between students who were bona fide residents of Madhya
Bharat and those who were not was based on an intelligible
differentia having rational relation to the _object of the Rule.
Venkatarama. · Ayyar, J. speaking on behalf of the majority
observed':

"The object of the classification underlying the impugned
rule was clearly to help to some extent students who are
residents of .Madhya Bharat 'in the prosecution ·O"f their
studies, and it cannot be disputed that it is quite a legiti-
F mate and laudable objective for a State to encourage
education within its bordm. Education is a State
subject, and one of the\ directive principles declared in
Part IV of the Constitutio~ is that the State should make
effuctive provision' for education within the limits of its
economy .• (Vide Article 41). The State has to contri-
G
bute for the up keep ·and the running of its educational
institutions. We are in this petition concerned with a
Medical College,and it is well known that it requires consi·
derable finance to maintain such an institution.;lf the State
has to _spend money on it, is it unreasonable that it should
so order the educational system that the advantage of it
would to some extent at least enure for the .benefit of the
State 7 A roncession $iven to the reside.nts of the State in the
•

PRADEEP JAIN V. UNION 971

. mallet of fees is obviously calculated to serve that end, ds
presumably some of them might, after passing out of the
Co/(ege, settle down as doctors and serve the needs of the
•
locality.· The classification is thus based on a ground
which has a reasonable relation to th.e subject-matter.of
•
the legislation, and is in consequence not open to attack.
It µas been held in The State of Punjab v. Ajab Singh
and Anr. that a classification might validly be made on a
•
. geographical basis. Such a classific;ation ·would be
eminently just and reasonable, where it relates to educa-
tion which is the concern primarily of the State. The
contention, therefore, that the rule imposing capitation
fee is in contravehtion of Article 14 must be rejected."
c
(emphasis supplied)

It may be noted that here discgmination was 'based on
residence within the State of Madhya Bharat and yet it waJ ·held
justified on the ground that the object of the State in making the .
Rules .was to encourage students who werl' residents of Madhya ·
• /
·Bharat to take up the me4ical course so that "some of th'em
might; after passing out from the college, settle down as doctors
and serve the 'needs of· the locality" and the Classification made
by the Rule had rational relation to this object. This justification
I
ol' the discrimination based on residence obviously rest 011 the
assul!lption that those who were bona fide residents of Madhya
Bharat wonld after becoming doctors settle down and serv~ the
needs pf the people fa the State. We are not· sure whether·
any facts were pleaded in the affidavits justifying ~his assumption •
but the judgment of Venkatarama Ayyar, J. show that the decision .t
of the majority Judges proceeded on this assumption and that
was regarded as a valid ground justifying ·the discrimination made
by the impugned Rule.
•
We may p9int out that iii Minor P. ·Rajendran's r:ase (supra)
also, an argument was put forward on behalf of the State Govern-
ment that if selection w~s made district-wise, tbose selected from
a district were likely to settle' down as practitioners in that-distri-
cts so that the districtq were likely to bem:fit from their training.
But this argument was rejected by the C0urt and district-wise
admission to medical colleges was struck down as constitution-
ally invalid. It is significant to note that the Court did not reject
tbis ar~nme11t M intrinsically irre/~vant but the only ground on
••
•
.·

972 SUPRBME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.
•
which it was rejected was that "it was neither pleaded' in the
counter affidavit of the State nor had the· State placed any facts or •• ,,
figures justifying the plea that. stud~nts selected district-wise w.ould
settle down as medical practitioners in the respective district where
.they resided". It would be interesting to spectulate what court
would have decided if tbe State Government had placed suffi·
B cient maierial l;>efore the court showing that students coming from
different districts .in the State ordinarily settle down as m~dical
praetitioners hi th'e respective districts from where they comr.

This Court also upheld reservation ..based on residence
c requirement for a period of not less tlian ten years, for adn:iission to
medical colleges jn the then State. of Mysore, in the subsequent
.decision in N. Vsaundhara's · cirse (supra). The J,'lule which·was
impugn.ed in that case was Rule 3 of the Rules for selection of.
candidates for admission to· the professional course leading tn
MB.BS course in the G6vernment Medical Colleges in the then.
State Of Mysore 'and this Rule provided that "no porson who is.
not a citize.n of India and who is not,qomiciled and resident in the
State l)fMysore for not less than ten years at any time prior to
the'Clate of the application for a seat, shall be eligible to apply."·
The petitioner's application for admission was rejected on the
ground that she had not resided .in the State for ·a period of ten
years as required by Rule 3 and she consequently challenged the
constitutional validity of that Rule, oli the plea that it violated the
right t9 equality guaranteed by Article 14. The . challenge was
however negatived and the .constitutional validity of Rule 3 was
upheld by a 3 Judge Bench of this Court. The ' Court relied upon
the 'decision itt D''P. Joshi's. c~e (supra) and observed: . ·

"If classification based on residence does not impinge
upon the principle of equality enshrined in Art. 14 as
11eld by this Court in the decision already cited which is
'*'
··'
binding upon us, then•the further condition of the resi·
dence in the State being there for atleast ten years would
. also seem to be equally valid unless. if is ·shown by the
petitioner that selection of the period of ten years ma)ces
:the classification so unreasonable as to render it arbitrary
and with~t any substantial basis ot.intelligible. differen·
Ha. The object of framing the impugned rule seems to be
to attempt to impart m•dical education to the best talent
available ·out of the class of persons who are /ikeiy, so far .
(IS it c(ln reasonably be foreseen, to serve as doators, thf ·
. PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwali, J.) 973

inhabitants tJf the State of Mysore. It is true that it is A. ,
possible to say with absofut_e certainty that all those admit·
• ted to the medical colleges would necessarily stay in
Mysore State after qualifying as doctors: they have indeed
a fundamental right as citizens to settle anywhere in India.
and they are also free, if they so desire and can manage, B
to go out of India for further studies or even ot_herwise.
But these possibilities are permissible and inherent in our
·constitutional set-up and these considerations cannot
adversely affect the constitutionality of the otherwise
valid rule. The problem as noticed in minor P.- Rajend·
ran's case and as revealed by a large number of cases c
which have recently come to this Court is that the
number of candidates desirous of having medical e.duca-
. tton is very much larger than the number of seats availa·
hie in medical colleges. The need and demand for
doctori in our country ls so great that young .boys a,nd·
girls feel that in. medical profession they can both get D
gainful employment and serve the people. The State has
therefore to formulate with reasonable foresight a just
schemes of classification for imparting medical education •
to the available candidates which would serve the object
and purpose af providing broad · based ·medical. aid
to the people of the State and to provide medical. edu· E
cation to those who are best suited for such education.
Proper ·c1as;ifica\ion inspired by this consideration and
selection on merit from ·such classified groups therefore
cannot be challenged on the ground of inequality violating •
Art. 14. The impugned rule bas not been shown-by the F
petitioner to. suffer from the vice.-of unreasonableness.
The counter-affidavit filef by the State on the other hand ·
discloses the purpose to· b.e that of serving the interests of
the residents of the Srate by providing me"dical aid for
them." ·
G
. ' . . .
Here also reservation based on residence requirement of not
less than ten years was held. to be non-discriminatory though it
denied equality of opportunity for admission to the medical
. colleges in, the State to all those who did not satisfy this residence
re_quirement. The Court took the view that: the object of the
State Government in making such reservatiop based on -residence
requirement of not less than ten years was to "impart medical

•
' .
974 SUPREME COURT RUORTS [1984) p S.C.R.
, education to the best talent available out of the class of persons
who are likely, so far as it can·reasonably be foreseen', to serve as
doctors, the inhabitants of the State". The principle of selection
based ·on merit across the board was thus allowed to be i;nodified •
by .the claim of State interest in providing broad based medical
·aid fo the people of-the State" and reservation based on residence
·reqt1irement of rlot less than ten years was upheld Sf a valid reser-
vation. We find an echo of the same reafoning in the following
"' words from the judgment of· Dua,.J. in. D.N. Chancha/a v. Siate
. of Mysore1.

"the object of selection for admission to \he medical
colleges considered in the background of the Directive
Principles of State Policy contained in our Constitution,
ajlpears to be to select the' best material from amongst
·the candidates in order not only to provide them with
adequate means of livelihood but also .to provide the much
needed medical aid to the ·people and to improve public
health generally"
(Emphasis supplied)

. The claim . of State · foterest in providing adequate medical
service to the people of the· Sta(e by impartiµg medical education
to student:i who by reason -of their residence in the State wonld.
be likely to settle down and serve the people of the State as
• doctors has thus been regarded by the Court as a legitimate ground
for laying down residence requirement for• admission to medical
•. colleges in the State. . ·

We may ~I~o conyeniently at. this stage refer to the decision
of this Court in. D.N. Chancha/q's case. (supra); The reservation
impugned i'u this_ case was univeisity-wise reservation unde_r which
preference for admission to a medical college run by a university
was !iiven to students who had passed the. PUC examination of
that university and only 20 per cent of the seats were available to
those passing the PUC Examination of other universities. The
·petitioner who had passed PUC ·eicamination held by the Bangalore
university~ applied for admissio_n to any one of the medical
.colleges affiliated to ·the Karnataka . University. But she did no~
come within the merit list on the basis of which 20 per cent of .

'(IJ p971J Suppl. s.c.R. 60S .

• . .
PRADBEP JAIN v. UNIOit (.Bhagwati, !.)

•
tile open seat; wore filled up anJ sirice sile bad not passed the PUC A

.. Examination held by the Karnataka University, her application
for admission to a medical college affiliated to the Karndtaka
Univ~rsity was rejected. She therefore filed a writ petition qnder
Article 32 of the Constitution contending inter alia that the .
University wise distribution of seats was discriminatory and being B
withotit any rational basis was violative of Article 14. This con-
tention was however rejected by a ~ Judge Bench of this Court.
Shelet, J. speaking on behalf of the Court . held that there was no
. .
constitutional infirmit:r, involved in giving preference. to students
.who had passed t_he PUC Examination of the same University and
gave _the"fol!owing reasons . in supporCof this conclusion: c
"The three universities were set up in three different
places presumably for the purpose of catering to the
·educational and academic needs of those areas, Obvious-
ly one university for the \\hole of the State could neither
D
have been adequate nor feasable to satisfy those needs.
Since it woul~ !lot be possible t<;> admit all candidates in·
, the medica\ colleges run by the Government, some basis
for screening the candidates had to be set up. There can
be no manner of doubt, and it is now fairly well settled,
that 1he Government, as also other private agencies, who E
found such centres for medical training, have the right to
frame rules for admission so lon,g as those rul_es are not
inconsistent with the university statutes andregulationsand
do not suffer from infirmities,_ constitutional or otherwise.
Since the Universities are . set up for satisfying-the educa-
tional needs of different areas where they are set up· a!ld
-medical· colleges are established in those areas, it can '
safely be presumed that they also were so set up to satisfy
the needs for medical training of those attached to those
universities. In our view, there is nothing Undesirable in I
ensuring that those attached to such universities have
their ambitions to have training in specialised subjects, 0
•
· like medicine, satisfied through colleges affiliated to their
own universities.. Such a basis for s.election ha.snot .the
disadvantage of districtwise or unitwise selection as any
student from any part of the State can pass the qualifying
examination in. any of the three universities irrespec(ive
'ff
of the place of his birth or residence.. Further, the. rules
confer a discretion on the selection committee to admit
976 • SUPREME CO}iRT REPORTS \.l 9841 3 S.6. R.
A •
outsiders upto . 20% of the. total available seats in any
. ~· .
one of these . colleges, i.e., those who have passed the· •
equivalent examination held by any other university not
only in the State but also elsewhere in India. It is; there· •
fore, impossible to say that the .basis of selection adopted
in these rules would defea( the object of the rules as was
B said in Ra)endran's case· or, make possible fess merito·
rious students obtaining admission at the ~ost of the
better candidates. The fact that a candidate having
lessermarks might obtain admission at the cost of ano·
ther having higher marks from another university does
. not necessarily mean that a less mefitorious candidate
c gets advantage over a. more meritorious one. As a. well
known, different universities have different standards in
the examinations held by them. A preference to one
attached· to one university in its. own institutions for post·
graduate or technical ·training is not uncommon. Rules
D giving such a preference are to be found in various uni·
versities. Such a system for that reason alone is not to
be condemned as' discriminatory' particularly when admis-
sion to such a· university by passing a qualifying exami·
'
,f-
nation held by it is not precluded by any restrictive
qualifications~ such as birth o~ residence, or any other
E similar restrictions. In our view, it is not possible to
, equate the present basis for selection with these which
were·held invalid in the aforesaid two decisions. Furl.her,
the Government which bears the financial burden of run-
ning the Government colleges if entitled to lay down
criteria for admission would be made, provided of course
such classification is· not· arbitrary and has a rational
b~sis and· a reasonable co1mection with the object of the.
rules. So long as. there is no discrimination within. each
of such sources, the validity of the rules laying down
such sources cannot be successfully challenged. In our
. view, tqe·rules Jay down a valid classification. Candidates
·G passing through the qualifying examination h.eld by a
university from a class by themselves as distinguished •
from those passing through such examination from the
other two un(versities. Such a classification has a reaso·
nable nexus with the object of the rules, namely, to cater
.ff to the needs of candidates who would' naturally look to
their own university to advance~their training in technical
studies, such as medical studies. 'In .o.ur opinion, the
'
PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.)

rules cannot Justly be attacjced on the. ground, of hostile A.·
discrimination or as being otherwise in breach of Article
14."

University-wise distribution of seats was thus upheld by .the
Court as constitutionally valid even though it was not in confor-
B
mity with the principle ,of Sel~ion based on merit and marked"
i a departure from it. The view taken by the court was that univer-
sity-wise distribution of seats was not discriminatory.becaus·e it
was based on a rational principle .. There was nothing unreasonable
in providing ·that in granting admissions to medical college* •
affiliated to a university, reservation shall be made in favour of c
c'andidates who have passed. PUC ·examination of that university,
lirstl¥, because it would bequite legitimate for student~ w)lo are
. .attached to a university to entertain. a ' desire to. "have
' . training in
specialised subjects, like medicine, satisfied through colleges
affiliated to their own" university since that promote institutional
continuity which .has its 0°wn value and secohdly, because any D
student from ally · part of the country could pass ihe qualifying
examination of that.university, irrespective; of the place cif his birth.
or residence.

The second consideration which has legitimately weighed
E
with the courts in· diluting the principle of selection based on ·
merit is the claim of backwardness made on. behaif of any parti-
cular region. .There have been cases where stud'ents residing in
·a backward region have been given preferential tr.eatment in
admissions to .medical colleges and such preferential treatment has
been upheld on the ground that though.·apparently discriminatory F
against others, it is-intended to correct the imbalance or handicap
from which the .students from the backward region are suffering·
: ans! thus bring about real equality in the larger sense. Such
preferential treatment for .those residing in the backward region
is designed to produce . equal opportunity on a· broader basis by r
providing to neglected · geographical or human areas an opportu' G
nity to .rise which they would not have if no preferential
'i
treatment is given to them and they are treated on th'e same basis
as others for admissions to medical colleges, be·cause -then they
would never be able to compete with others more advantageously
placed. If creatively and imaginatively applied,- ·preferential
H
treatment based on residen¢e in a backward regfon can play a
significa 1 t role in reducing uneven levels of development and such

•
918 SUPREM'B CouRT REPORTS [1984J 3 s.c.'R.

. ~ . •

'.

<D
~RADEEP JAIN v. UNION (llhagwati, J.)

'requires such assistance, it-cannot be said that the object A
to be achieved has on relation to the classification made
, by giving larger representation to the Andlira region. •
The increase in the Telangana quota is consistent with
and promotes and advances the object underlying the
establishment of the institution.~' ..
B
J We are however not' concerned here ·with a case of reservation
or preference .for persons fro]]} a backward region within a State
and we need not therefore dwell any longer upon it.
-
It will be noticed from the above discussion that though
intra-state discrimination between persons resident in different c
districts or regions of a State has by an large been frowned upon
by the court and struck down as invalid as in Minor P. Rajendran's
. ")
case. (supra) and Perukaruppan's case (supra), the Court has m.
'.
/J.N. Chanchal/a's case al\d other similar cases up-held institutional
reservation effected through university wise distribution of seats
for admission to medical colleges. The Court has also by its D
decisions in D.P. Joshi's case and N. Vasundhara's case (supra)
sustained the consitutional validity· of reservation based on resi-
dence within a State for the purpose of admis~ion to medical. college.·
These decisions which all relate to admission to MBBS course
are binding upon us and it is therefore not possible for usto hold, E
in the. face of these decisions; that residenc~ requirement in at
State for admission to MBBS course is irrational and irrelevan
and cannot be introduced as a condition for admission without
violating the mandate of equality of opportunity cont11ined
in Article 14. We must proceed on the basis that at least so far
as admission to MBBS course is concerned, residence requirement F
in a Sta\e can be introduced as a condition for admission to the
MBBS course. It is of course true .that the Medical Education
Review Comµi.ittee established by the. Government of India ha~ in
its reriort recommended after taking into .account all relevant
cotlsiderations, that the "final objective should be to ensure that ·
all admissions to the MBBS course slrould be open to candidates G
I . on an All India basis without the imposition of existing domici-
lary condition", but having regard t~ the practical difficulties .of
transition to the ·stage where admissions to MBBS course in all
m~clical colleges would be on All India Basis, the medical Edu-
cation ,Review Committee has suggested "that to begin with not H
less than 25 per cent se~ts .in each institution m·ay be open to
candidates on all India basis." We are not all sure whether at
"'·
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3s.c.iL
the present stage it 'w~uld be consistent with the mandate of
equality in its broader dynamic sense to provide.that admissions to
• . the MBBS course in all medical colleges in the country should. be
on all India. basis. Theoretically, of course, if admissions are given
. on the ba_sis of all india national entrance examination, each
indi•idual woµld have equal opportunity of securing admission,'
B
but that would not take· into account diverse consideration, such
as, differing level of social, economic and educational development
of different - regions, disp~rty in the number of seats available for
admission to the MBBS co.urse in· different States, dffliculties which
may be experienced by students. from one region who might in the
competition on all India basis.get admission to the MBBS course
in another region far remote from their own and other allied
. factors. There can be no doubt that_ the policy of ensuring ad.missions
to the MBB' co•irse 01 all fnlia b·His i; a highly desirable policy,
based as it is on _the p)stulatdh1\ ·India is on; nation1l and every

' citizen of India is entitled to lnve equ1l opportunity for education
· and advancement, but it is an ideal to be . aimed at and it may not
be ~ealistically .possible, in the present circumstances, to adopt it, -
for· it cannot prujuce real equality of opportunity unless there> is
· complete absence of disp1rlties and inequalities a situation .which
simply does not exist in th~ country today. There are massive social
and e~onomic dis;nrities ~1:1 inqualities not only between State
E aqd State but also between region and region wi'thin a state and
even between citizens . and citizens within thB- same region.
There _is a yawning •gap between the rich and the poor and
there, are •so many disabilities and injustices from which the
poor suffer as a. class, that they cannot avail themselves of .any
opportunities which may in law be open to them.· They do not
·F have the social and material resources to take advantage of these
opportunities whicb. remain merely on paper recognised by law but
non-existent in fact. ·
•
Students from backward States or regions will hardly b• able
'Q ·to compete -with those from advanced States or regions because,
though possessing an intelligent mirid, they would have liad no
adequate opportunities for development so as to be in a
position to compete with otfiers. · .So also students belonging to -
the. weaker sections who have not, by rea_son of their socially or
· economically disadvantaged position, peen able to secure education·
· in good schools would be at a disadvantage compared to students
..
•
PRADEEP JAIN v. UNIO)'I (Bhagwati, J.) 9si
belonging to the aflluent or well-·to-cio fa~ilies who have had the
best of school education and in open All India Competition, they
would be likely to be worsted. There would .also be a number of·
,
students who,. if they do not get admission in a medical college
near their residence; and are· assigned admission in a far . off college
in another State as a result of open All India competition, may not
B
be ~ble to go to such other college on account of lack of resources
and facilities and in the result, they would be effec'tively deprived
of a real opportunity for pursing the medical course even though
on paper .they would have got admission in a medical colle.ge. It
would be tantamount to telling· these· students that they are given
an. opportunity. of ·taking up the medical course, but if they c
cannot afford it by reason of the medical college to which they
are admitte.d being far away in another State, it is their bad luck :
the State cannot help it; because the State has done all that it
could, namely, provide equal opportunity to all for medical
education. But the question is whether the opportunity provided_
is real or illusory? We are therefore of ·the view that a ·certain D
percentage of reservation. on the basis offesidence requirement
may legitimately be made i.n order to ~qualise opportunities for
medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and
not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage
of reservation m.ade on this count may also include institutional
E
r~serva1ion for students passing the PUC or pre-medical exami-
nation of.the same university or clearing the qualifying examination
from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical
colleges in th~ State and for this purpose, th ere should be ~o .
distinction between schools affiliated to State Board and schools
affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, Jt would . F
be constitutionally, permissible to provide, as an interim measure
. until we· reach the stage when we can consistently 'with the broad
mandate of the rule of equality in .th& larger sense ; ensure admis-
sions to th.e M.B.B.S, course on the basis of national entrance
exa.mination an .ideal which· we must increasingly strive to reacl;.
for· reservation of a certain percentage of seats in· the medical G
colleges for students satisfying a prescribed residence requirement
as also for students who have passed .P.U.C. or pre-medical
examination or any other qualifying examiqatlon held by the
university or the State and for this purpose it should make no
difference whether the qulifying examination is conducted by the
State Board . or by the Central Board of Secondary Education; H
because no discfimination can be made ·between schools affiliated
•
~. . .
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
.
[1984] 3s.p.R.·

·" can be made between -school$ affiliated to the Central Board of
Secondary Education. We may point out that at the qlose of the ·
arguments we asl1ed the learned Attorn:ey Ge~ral to inform the
court as to what was the stand of the Government ol India
i!l the matter of sue& reservation and· the learned Attorney
General in response to' the inquiry made by the Court filed a
B'
policy statement wliich contained the following formulation of the
policy of tb.e Government of India :
~·-1

•
~·central Government is generally opposed to the
principle of reservation based on domicile or residence
c for admission to institution or' higher edJcation, whether
· professional or otherwise. In. view of the territorially
articulated nature of the syste~ of inatitutions of higher
learning including institutions of professional eduation, ""'·-
there is no objection, however, to stipulating reservation
or preference for a reasonable quantum in under· graduate
courses for students hailing from the school system vf
educational .hinterland of the institutions. For this
purpose, there should be no distinction between schools
affiliated to State BoarJ and schools affiliated to CBSC.'? '
We are glad to find that the policy of the Govern.neut of
India in the matter" of reservatkn bas~ .on residence· requirement
and institutional preference accords with the view taken by us
in that behalf. We may p~ititout that even if at some stage it
,. is decided to regulate admissions to the M.B.B.S. course on the .
basis of All India .Entrance Examination, some provision would
have to be made fur allo;;ation of seats amongst the sele.cted
F
candidatl's on the basis 'of residence or ins.titutional affiliation· so
as to take into account the afore-mentioned factors;

. The only question which rem~ins to be considered is as to
what· should be the extent of reservation based on residence ·
requir~llient and ins~itutional preference. There can be no doubt
that such reservation cannqt completely exclude admission of •
. students from other universities and States on the b~sis of merit
judged in open .competition. Krishna fyer, J;- rightly remarked
in Jagdish Saran's qase (supra) at page 845 and· 846 of the
·Report:
.H
)
~'Reservation
. .
must be kept in check by the ·demands
\ PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 983

of competence. You cannot extend the shelter of.
reservation where minimum qualifications are absent,
.. Similarly~ all the best talent cannot be completely
exclud.ed by ,wholesale reservation. So a certain per·
centage which may be av.ailable, must be kept open for
!Jleritorious performance regardless of uqivernity, State
and the like. Complete &xclusion of the rest of the
country for the sake of a province, wholesale ba~!shment
of proven abi)ity to open up, hopefully, some dali~ talent,
total sacrifice of excellence at the alter <lf. equalisation-
when the Constitution mandates for every one equality
before and equal protection of the law-may. be fatal C·
folly, selfdefeating educational technology and anti-
natic;mal if made a routine rule of State policy. A
fair preference, a reasonable reservation, a just · ailjust-
ment of the prior needs and real potential of the weak
with the. partial recognition of the presence of compe·
titive merit.,,;,such is the dynamics of social justice
which animates the three eg~litarian articles of the Cons·
titution."

. We agree wholly with these observations made by the learned.
Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesale ;eservation mad~·
by some of the State G9vernme~ts 'on the basis of 'domicile' or
.reside.nee requirment within the State or· on the basis of ins(i·
tutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying
examination held by the university or the State excluding all
students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit. We
declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutienal and
void as being in violation of Article 14 ofthe Constitution.

But, then to what extent can reservation based on residence
requirement within the State or on. institutional preference for
Q -
students iiassing the qualifying examination held by the university
or the state be regarded as constitutionally permissible? It is
not possible to provide a categorical answer to this question for,
·as pointed out by the policy statement of Government of India, the
extent of such reservation would depend on several factors foclud·
ing opportunities for professional education in' that particular area,
the extent of competion, level of educational deve!Opment of the.
"rea and other r~levant factors. It may be that in a State. wer~
-
.

984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S.C.R.
A the level of educational development is woefully low, there are
comparatively inadequate opportunities for trainining in the
medical sepcciality and there is )arge scale social and· economic
backwardness, there may be justification for reservation of a
higher per~ent~ge of seats ip the medical colleges· in the State
and such higher percentage may n'ot militate against · "the. equality
B
"mandate viewed in the perspective of social justice". So many
variables depending on social and eeonomic facts in the coutext
of educational opportunities· would enter· into the determination
of the 'question as to what in the case ,of any particular State;
... should be the limit of reservation based on- residence requ.irement ·
c within the State or on institutional preference. But, in our
opinion, such reservation should in no·· event exceed the o.uter
limit of 70 per cent of. the total number of open ~eats after
taking into a.ccount other kinds of res'ervations val,idly mirde.
The Medical Education Review· Committee has suggested that
the outer limit should not exceed 75 per cent but ·we are the
1> view that it. wo~1ld be fair and just to fix the outer limfr at 70
per cent. We are Jay.fog down this outer limit of reservation in· an
attempt to reconcile the apparently conflicting .claims of equality
and excellence. We may make it clear that this outer limit 1 fixed ·
by us wilf be subject to any reduction or attenuation which may
be made by the Inaian Medical Council which is the statutory body
E of ·medical practitioners ·whose functional obligations include
setting standards for. medical ed.ucat_ion and providing for its
regulation ancl' coordination. · We are of the opinion that this
outer limit fixed by us must gradually over-the years be progressively
reduced but that isa. task which' would have. to be performed
F by th~ Indian Medical Council. We would direct the Indian
Medical Council to consider within a period of nine months from
today ·whether the outer limit of 70 per cent fixed by us needs
to be reduced and ·jf the Jndian Medical Council determines a
··shorter outer limit, it will be binding on the States and the Union
Territories. We would .also direct the ,Indian Medical Council to
G subject the outer limit so fixed to reconsideration at the end of
I
every three years but. in no event should the outer limit exceed
. 70 per cent fixed by us. The result is that in any event
at \east 30 per cent of th~ open seats shal1 be available for admis- ·
sion of students on all India ba~is. irrespective. ~f the State or
university from which they. come and such admissiQns slia'll be
granted purely on merit Qii the basis of either all India Entran.ce

-.
Bxanm. or entra11ce exa1llination ta be held by the State. Of
PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.)
•' . 985

course, we need not. add that even where r~servation on the basis A
of residence requirement or institutibnal preference is made in
11ccordance with tbe directions given in this judgment, admissions
from the source or sources indicated by such reservation ·shall be
based only on• m'erit, because the ·object must be to· select. the
best and most meritorious student from within· such source or
B
sources.

So much for admission to the M.B.B.S. course: but different
considerations must prevail when we come to consiiler the questi.on
of reservation· based on re.sidence .requirement within the State
or on institutional preference for admission· to post graduate c
courses, such as, M.D . , M.S. and the like. There we cannot
allow excellence ta be compromised by any other considerations
because that would be deterimental to the interest ·of the nation.
It was rightly pointed out by Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Saran's .
case, and we wholly endorse wh~t he has said :
D
"The basic medical needs of a region or the pre-
ferential push justified for a handicapped ·group cannot
prevail in the same measure at the highest scale of
speciality . here the best skill or talent, must be hand-
picked by selecting according to capability. At the level of
Ph. D.; M'.D., or levels of higher proficiency, where
international meashre of talent is 'made, where losing
one great scientist or technologist in the making is a
·national Joss the considerations we hafe expended upon
as important loss their potency. Here equality, measured
by matching excellence, bas more meaning and cannot
F
be d·iluted muc.b without grave·risl<."

"If equality of opportunity for every person in the
country is the constitutional guarantee, a candidate who
gets more marks then another is entitled: to preference .
for admission.· Merit niust be ·the test when choosing tb.e G
best, according to. t.his rule of equal ch'ance for .equal·
marks. This proposition· has. greater importance when
we reach ,the higher levels of education Hke. post· graduate
courses. , A(ter all. top technological expertise in · any
vital field like .medicine is a nation's human asset with-
• out which its advance and development will be stunted . . II
· The .role of hign IP'ade s~ill or special talent may be less
' '' . •'
'

'J
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 S.C.R.
A ·at ihe lesser levels of education, jobs no disciplines of
social inconsequence, but more at the higher levels of .
sophisticated .skills and stfategic employment. To devalue
mr~it at the s\)mmit is to temporise wiih the country's
development in.the vital areas of professilmal expertise~
B lh science and· technology and other specialised fields
of developmental significance,·, to relax lazily or easily .
in regard to exacting standar.ds of performance may be
. running .a .gra.ve national risk because. in advanced
medicimi" and other critical departments of higlier know• .
ledge, crucial to· material progress, the people of India
c should not be denied the .best the nation's talent lying
• latent can produce. ·If tte. best potential in these fields
.is cold-shouldered for populist considerations garbed as
reservations •. ·.the victims, . in the long run, may be the
people themselves.. Of course, this un-relenting strict-
ness in selecting the best may not be so imp.erative~at
D
other levels where a· broad measure of efficiency may be
good enol!gh and what Is needed Is merely to weed out
the worthless."

"Secondly, and more importantly, it' is difficult to
E denounce or. renounce the· merit criterion· when the
selection is for post graduate or post doctoral courses iu
specialised subjects. · There is no substitute for sheer
flair, for creative talent,· fqr fine-tuned performance at,
the difficult ·bights of some disciplines wh.ere the best
alone is likely to blossom as the best. To sympathise
F
mawkishly with . the weaker sections by selecting sub-
sta.ndard candidates, is to punish society as a whole· by
denying the prospect, of excellence say in hospital servibe.
Even the poorest, when stricken by critical illness, needs •
the attentfon of super-skilled ·specialists, not humdrum
G .
. second-rates. So it ·is that relaxation on. merit, by over
.

ruling equality and quality· all· together, is a social risk
where the stage is post graduate or post-doctoral." ·
..
· Thes~ plls~ages from the j~dgment of Krishna Iyet,'J. clearly J
H and forcibly express the same view which we have .indepetldently
• reached on our own and in deed that view has bee.n so ably
~xpressed in .these· p~s~a~es, that we do v,ot 'thipk we can usefully
• •

I
PRADE!P IAIN v. UNloN (Bhagwatl, ].)_ . 987

add anything to what has. already bee.n said there. We may point
out that tile Indfan Medical Council ·.bas also emphasized lhat
. playing with merit, so far· a,s admissions tu post graduate courses
are concerned, for· pampering local feeling, will boomeriang. We
may with advantage reproduce the· recommendation or .the India!!

• Medical €Duncil on this pqint which may not be the last word in
social wisdom but is certainly worthy or consjderation: .

"Student for post-graduate trainirig should ~ ~c
ted strictly on merit judged on the basis of ii~d~e
record in the un·dergraduate course .. All seleeliO,e,.,. • ·
•
post·graduite studie~ should be conducted by the Uili~er-
Bities." · ""'' c:
-
•
The Medical Education Re.view Committee has alw eiprelled
•

the opi~ion ·that "all admissions to the post-graduate courses·
in any institution should b~ open to ,candidates on an all India
basis and there should b11, no festriction regarding domicile in the
State/UT in which the institution is located." . So also · in the
policy statement filed by the leaned Attorney General, the Govern· ·
mcnt of India has categorically expressed the view that:. ·

'
"So far aa adm.issions fo the institutions or post·
graduate colleges and spccjal professional colleges i1
concerned,· it should be entirely on the basis of all India
•
merit subject to constitutional reservations in 'favour of
Sc]Jeduled Castes and.Scheduled Tribes."

We are the·refore of the view · that so 'far" as admissions to post- I'
graduate co11rses, such. as M.S., M.D. and th'e like are concerned,
i.t would be eminently desir-able not to provide for any reservation
based on residence require men• within the S_tate or on institutional
preference. . But, having regard' 'to border considerations of
equality of opportunity and .. institutional continuity in education
·which has its· own importance and value, we would. direct that G
tljoU!lch residence requirement within the State sj11ill not be a
gtou~d for reservation in . admissions to post g_raduate courses, a
certain percentage of seats.· may in the present circumstances, be
·. res~rved on the basis of institutional 'preference in the 11eµse ilia!
a sfu~ent who bas passed M.B.B.S. course from a medical· \;ollege
or umvers~y may be given preference for admission to i~~t- . ·u... ·
graduate course in the same me_dical colleges or universjt¥;j>u~ · ·
• . '*~ i I .
•

988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1984) 3 S.C.R. '
A •
such r~seivation on the basis of institutional preference should~at ·
in ·any eyent exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats
a\laillible for ·admission to the post-graduate ·course. This outer ·
lin1it which •we are . fi.'!;ing will.. also .be subje~t to revision oft the .
lower side by. the Indian Medical Council in the same ·mariner as
B directed by-us in the.case of admissionv.to the M.B.a.s. course.
. But,. even In regard, to · admissions to the post-graduate course:
we would direct that so far as super specialities such. as neuro·.
surgery and carqiology ar" concerned, .there should be , nci reserva·
tion a,i all· even on the basis of institutional preference and admis·
~ions should• be granted purely on merit on all India basis.
c • ! '

' · What we hav~ sai§ about in regard to admissions to the
M,B.B.S. and post-graduate c01mes must ayply equally in relation
ta!-adiniS'Slons to the B.p.s. and l\;f.D.S. cou~es. So far as

D
to
admissions the B.D.S. and M.D,S. courses are concerned, it
will be- the 'Ii:tdian Dental Council which is the statutory body of
• dental ptactitioners, ·which will have to carry out the dir~ctions
given llY,,~s to the Indian Medical Council in regard to admission's
to M.B.B.'S. and post-graduate courses. The directions given by
us to the Indfan Medical Co~ncil u;iay therefore be read a§ appli·
E cable mutatis mutandis to. the Indian . Dental Council ~o far as
admissions to BDS and MDS courses are concerned.
- .
The de9isions reached by us in these writ petition{ will bind
the Union of India, the Sfate Governments and Administrations
, ' of Union Territories because it lays down the law for the entire
country and mor.eover we have . reached this decision. after giving .
notice to tb,e Union of India an\! all he State Governments.and.
Union Territories. We may pofot out that it is not' necessary for
us to give any further directions in·. these writ p.etitions in l'egard
to the' a'driiissions of the ·petitioners in the writ petitions, because
G the' academic term for which ihe admjssian·s were· sought bas
already, expired and SO far . ·as concerns tht petitioners Wh5J have 1
already been provisfonally admitted, '\"'.'e have directed that the
provisional adniissioils · given to them shall not be disturbed but
· they shal.1 b~ treated as ·final admissiOii~· The y.irit ~etitions and
. the. civil appeal WiJI accordingly stand disposed _of ID the above .
.H, terms. There will .be 110 order as to costs in the writ xietitions
" ' ' and_th~ civil appeat.
,,

• , '
. ;.: PRADllEP JAIN v, UNION (Bhagwati,,J,) 989

· AMARENPRA NATH SEJ\\ J. I have had 'the advantage of
reading the judgment of my learned brother; Bhagwati, J. I.
agree with the orders passed by my learned brother and also the
. directions given by· him. I, however, propose io indicates in
brief my own reasons.
B
Mrleiil:nect'brother in his judgment has referred to various
aspects of national life and has. very aptly emphasised 'on the 'need
of Unity of In'dia. My learned brother iri his judgment has set
·out the relevant facts and circumstances and has also considered the .
.relevant decisions. on the question involved in tl;ie present proce'e~
dings. c
Unity in diversity is · the essential peculiarity . of Indian
culture and .co1lstitutes the basic philosophy of Indian nationality.
It is also a fundamental· tenet· of our constitution. '}'hich seeks to
promote the 11nity wjiife maintaining at the same time the distinc-
tiveness of the various classei and kind\. of peopfe belonging to D
<:lifferent States forming the Indian Nation. Equalitr in the eye.
Of law1is the fundamental postulates and ·is guaranteed under the
Constitution. £ach and every -kind of discrimination is not in
violation of the Constitutional concept of equality and does not
necessarily, undermine the Unity· of India. The validity of any E
discrimination has to 1 be tested on 'the touch-stone of Art. 14 of ·
the Constitution. Appropriate classification may in . very many
case·s from .the vary core of· equality and promote bnity in the
true' se11se amdi~t diversity .
•
' F
To my mind· the questions involved in these proceedings
. lies within a short compass. The first question reliltes to reser-
vation of seats for admission to Medical Colleges ·in any State
on the basis of residence of the applicant in tlie State fdt iiileh
admission. Connei:ted with this· question is the question · of
, institutionalised reservatfon of se.ats for _admission to· Medical G
Colleges. The other question raised is the.question bf re~ervatio,n
of seats on such .considerations for admission ·to'' post-graduate
medical courses.

Th~ question of constitutional validity of reservation of seats
within re.asonable limits on the basis of residence and also the·' 'lf
buestion of institutionaliselhreservation of seats clearly appear .cf;_ '
,~ .....
• •
9-90 SUPJtEMB CouaT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

to be concluded by various decisions of this Court, as- has rightly
pointed outby my learned brother 'ii) his judgment in which he
has referred ·at length to these decisions, These decisions are
binding on this Court and are to be followed. Constitutional
validity of such reservations within the reasonable limit must, .
I · therefore, be upheld.
. • . . t
The real questfon is the question of the extent· of the limit .-"~

to which such reservations may be consitlered to be reasonable.
· T)le question of reasonabieness of such 'reservations must .neces·
. sarily be determined.with reference to the facts 1 and· circumstances
Cl or parlicular cases and with reference to the situation prevailing . ,- .
r
at· &.PY given .time. ~Y learned brother in his judgmeqt has
.elaboratelii and carefully considered these aspects. On a careful
consideration of all the facts and circumstallces and the matei:ials
placed, my learned brother has proposed. appropti~te orders and
has given necessary directions in this regard,. The .orders passed
D
by my learned brother and the direct!olis given by him on a
co11sideration of th<> materials on. recorJ and . the earlier decisions
of thia Court will serve the cause of justice, meet the requirements,
• of law and will n'ot affect or undermine national unity. ·I am,
· ·therefore, in entire agreement with the _orders p~ssed and directions
·1 given by him in this regard ..

·- . On the question of · admission to post-graduate .medical.
cources I must confess that I have some misgivings jll my .mind as
to the further classification maqe on the footings of supper··
ipesialities. Both my learned brothers;' however, agree on this.
r Al$0 in a· broader perspective ·this clas1ification my .serve the
interests. of the· nation better, though . interests of individual
· States to a small exte11t may be affected;'This distinction in cai~ of ·
super-specialities proceeds on the basis that in these very important
spheres the criterion for selection ·should be merit only ·without
institutionalised. reservations~ or. any re1ervation on the sround:
G of residence. I also .agree thai the orders and directions proposed
in reg-ard to admission. to MBBS and 1~ost·graduate ciiurses are. ., .
111so to be rea.d as applicable mutatis mutandis in relation t•
adniisslon to BDS and• MDS courses.

ii . Th.e problem of admission to. medical colleges' and. the post·
. f~A graduate medical. studies can only .be properly and effectively .
. ./• . s~.lved bX;he setting up of more medical colleges and .by increas·

__ ., ~- .r;/;r'.'~f'.:, .
'
PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION. (Bhagwatl, J.): 991
ing the number of seats in such colleges to enable aspirants to
have their aim of being qualified as medical practitioners and
1peciaiists in various subjects achieved. The same is also the
position witll regard to BOS a~d MOS courses. This. aspect ·has
i:i~eri very appropriately noticed 1Jy my learned brother in his
judgment.
, ORDER "B ..
With these. obserVations I agree with the .orders passed· an<!
the directions give.n by 1'.1Y learned brother Bhagwati,_ J.
Some of the students seeki9g ·admirsion to the. MBBS. course
in this academic year have made an application to this Court that
the Judgment delivered on 22nd June, 1984 -in the medical adinis. c
sio1i'cases may be given effect to only from ·the next academic
year, because admissions have already been made in. the medical ·
colleges attached to Sol!le of the Universities in :the country prior •
to the delivery of the judgment on 22nd June, 198l1 -and moreover
.·some time would be required for the purpose of achieving unifor· •.
D
mity in the procedure relating to admissions in the various Univer·
sities. We accordingly issued notice on the aJ)pli~ation to the lear.-
ned advocates who had appeared on behalf of the. various -partie~
at the hearing of the "main writ petitions as also to the Attorney
General and after hearing them, we· have come to the conclasion
and this is accepted by all parties that in view of the fact that all E
.. formalities for admission, including the holding. of entrance exami·
nation, have been completed in some of tlie ttates prior to the
judgment dated. 22-6-1984 and also since some time WOIJld we •
required for making the necessary preparations for implementin)!
the judgment, it is notpracticable to give effect to -the judgment
from the present academic year and in .fact compelling some F
States to.give effect to the judgment
' from
. the
.
present academic
.
year
when others have not, would result in producing ·inequality and if
all the States were to be required to implement the judgment im-
mediately, admissions already. made would have to be· cancelled and
·fresh entrance examinations would have to be held and this· would
require at least.2 or 2! months delaying the commencement of the. G.
i academic term apar't froip caUBing immense hardship to the stu·
-dents. We therefordlirect that the judgment shall be. inrplemented
wi.te effect from the next academic year 1985-86. Whatever admis: ·
sions, provisional or ptherwise, have been made for . the ·academic
year 1984·85, sh~t be distilrbed on the basis of. the judgment. II
We may make it clear. that. the judg!ll~nt .\Viii no~;;~ly to tbe
States of Andhera Pr:i.dcsh and Jaminu &' K.ashmir:~e at tbll '
' . . . , '··j·' . f: :~~!,:'·' '
--·~,
,.:
:; ': ·;--·.'.
992~ SUPREME COURT REPOl\?S [1984) 3 S.C.R.

,time' of hMring of the main writ petitions, it was pointed out ,to
us by the leaa,ned advocates, appearing on b,ehalf of those States•
that there were special Constitutional provisions in regard to them
which woufd n'eed independent consideration .
by this Court.-

--
. '

B
This order wm form part OT the main judgment delivered on
22·6·1984,
. '

H.S.K.
'
' ;

•

'
•
r
. ,

....
_
'···
. '

•
I
y.>·:··''

'