Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (August 5) reserved its order on the challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court, which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.

The bench led by CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the plea filed by the Telangana State Government. Previously, the Court had stayed the impugned order while taking on record the state of Telangana that it was ready to grant a one-time exception for the petitioners who had approached the High Court.

Before the High Court, a batch of petitions challenged the validity of Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (Rules 2017), which was amended by the State on July 19, 2024. The amendment was done as per G.O no.33 dated 19.7.2024.

The amended Rule 3(a) of the Rules 2017 provides that a candidate seeking admission under the 'Competent Authority Quota' for local candidates must study in the State of Telangana for a period of 4 consecutive years or reside in the state for 4 years. In addition, the candidate has to pass the qualifying examination from the State of Telangana.

During the hearing, the CJI verbally remarked that the bench was inclined to pass an interim order permitting those students who are from Telangana but had gone out of the State for their 11th and 12th class studies. He said :

" We are making it clear that via the interim order, we are permitting only those who are otherwise from Telangana but for some reason gone outside to pursue 11-12th."

" We will not permit such students who are not aware to be prejudiced," he added.

The bench clarified that it was of the view to give the benefit of the domicile quota to those students who would otherwise be left out due to studying for higher classes elsewhere.

Sr. Adv AM Singhvi, appearing for the State, said that the present policy is based on Article 371D of the Constitution. Notably, Article 371 D (1) states :

He then referred to the Presidential order of July 1, 1974 - Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974, made in light of Article 371D, where the term 'local area' meant the region of Telangana.

The main contention of Singhvi was that the present domicile rule has been brought for the benefit of those students belonging to poor or middle-class families who have lived and studied in Telangana throughout.

He added that the domicile benefit, under the Presidential order of 1974, was being given to those residing in Andhra Pradesh also. He submitted that after the creation of the state of Telangana in 2014, the status quo on domicile benefit would end after 10 years, that is, in 2024.

" For the specific case of Andhra, they know for 10 years (the benefit will prevail) and the cut-off (for domicile) will happen in 2024- 2025. They know that this benefit will end"

Referring to the Order of 1974, the CJI observed that the order which Singhvi relies upon was made when Telangana was not a separate state and refers to different regions associated with different Universities at that time. He pointed out that the present issue is with respect to medical colleges affiliated with Medical Universities of today.

Notably, paragraph 3 of the 1974 Order states :

Can't The State Implement The Domicile Rule From 2028? Bench Ponders

Considering how the present domicile rule may affect all those students who had gone outside the state, such as to Kota for preparing for their NEET entrances or to complete their 12th standard, the CJI inquired if the State could consider making the 4-year rule applicable from 2028 onwards.

"We can understand that in 2024, you put everyone on notice that henceforth you will complete 4 years in Telangana and therefore don't go outside if you want to apply."

Singhvi replied that the ground reality is that students from the affluent families go abroad to study their 11th and 12th, like London or Dubai, they can easily afford a medical seat anywhere, but the domicile rule is made keeping in mind those students who cannot afford such opportunities and have stayed in Telangana to complete their studies. He explained :

"Look at the Diaspora, you go and do affluent studies there and come back here - I am not grudging on that, that is very good, but you can't really deserve a place instead of my place (in terms of the quota requirement)"

"We do not really want this (policy) for people who go outside, spend crores there and then come back here"

The CJI reiterated, "Then do it for 2028" (implementation of the rule)

To support the state's decision to have the 4-year domicile rule from 2024, Singhvi relied on the decision in Anant Madaan vs State Of Haryana And Others (1995) where it was considering whether it's unfair or unreasonable to require a student to have studied in classes 10th, 11th, and 12th in a recognised school in Haryana in order to be considered as resident/ domicile in for medical/ dental admission.

There, the Court held that the law is clear that giving preference in admissions based on where a student lives or studied is allowed as long as the entire admission process isn't based only on that. Even back in 1955, in the case D.R. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, the Supreme Court said that while place of birth and residence are different, giving admission preference based on residence is valid.

Singhvi further referred to the decision in Rajdeep Ghosh vs The State Of Assam where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017.

The said Rule mandated that for being considered under the state quota, the candidate must study his/her 7th to 12th in Assam and qualify the exams from a local institute. Exception was carved only for those students whose parent were posted outside Assam as an employee of the Assam State Government, the Central Government, or a government-related agency.

Here the Court also made observations regarding those students who went outside Assam to get coaching for higher studies. The relevant portion reads :

" It was urged that some of the students may obtain admission in other States for the purpose of better coaching. Relevant data has not been placed on record by the petitioners that in Assam coaching is not available. Apart from that, when they can afford to obtain coaching in other States, they stand on a different footing, they are the one who belongs to an affluent class who can afford expensive education in other States and it is not necessary that they should be adjusted in State quota seat, they can stake claim for All India Quota Seats for the State of Assam. They can stake their claim with respect to open seats within the State of Assam. The exclusion is not total for them. However, with respect to the State­ quota seats, since it is open to the State Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile requirement, incumbents must fulfill the criteria. The criteria so laid down in Rule 3(1)(c) of Rules of 2017, cannot be said to be ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Domicile Rules Required To Be Made By The State Govt After The Lapse Of 10 Years As Per Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,2014: Telangana Govt. Argues

Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan also appearing for the state informed the bench that as per S.95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 "the existing admission quotas in all government or private, aided orunaided, institutions of higher, technical and medical education in so far as it is provided under article 371D of the Constitution, shall continue as such for a period of ten years during which the existing common admission process shall continue."

Sankarnarayanan explained that now the 10-year period has lapsed in 2024, and fresh domicile rules will be made by the state government.

At this juncture, Justice Chandran pointed out that since the 4-year rule is coming for the first time in the state, it would not be correct for the government to assume that the residents are aware of the rule's requirements.

CJI also weighed to add " From 1974 to 2024- for 48 long years they are aware, from 2025 they may not be"

Justice Chandran stressed, "Your argument is that every student or citizen must be aware of Article 371 D?"

CJI, seemingly supporting Justice Chandran's view, inquired further, "Students will be in 8th grade, they are now required to study the Constitution of India? If there is an illiterate parent?"

Sankarnarayananstressed that such domicile rules are already implemented in other states like Maharashtra, Assam, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

The lawyers appearing for the aggrieved candidates supported the decision of the High Court and mainly contended that the state government should not be aggrieved in the present case as the High Court has upheld the rules and only read down the interpretation of the impugned provision.

"The state cannot be aggrieved when a rule has been upheld and has been saved by giving an interpretation to frame the guidelines," they submitted.

When the CJI inquired if the candidates presently don't have any objection if rule is given prospective application from 2028, the counsel clarified that there would not be any objection. It was added that, however, for future purposes, a lot would depend on the rules that would be framed.

Senior Advocate Ragenth Basant, assisted by AoR Bhabna Das, submitted that the State's rule would allow a student who is not from Telangana to avail the domicile benefit merely on the ground that he studied in Telangana for four years. He cited the example of a Kerala student, who is residing in Telangana due to his parent's employment, becoming eligible for the domicile quota. However, the CJI pointed out that the High Court has held that the benefit should be given to only permanent residents of the State.

Background

Before the Telangana High Court, a batch of petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 3(a) of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (Rules 2017) which was amended by the State on July 19.

As per the impugned provision, a candidate seeking admission under the 'Competent Authority Quota' for local candidates requires him or her to study in the State of Telangana for a period of 4 years or reside in the state for 4 years.

Notably, Rule 3(iii) provides 85% reservations to 'local candidates' for permanent residents of the State.

In its judgment, the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao focused on Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.33 on July 19, 2024. The primary purpose of this rule is to reserve seats for local candidates in medical colleges. The court recognized that if this rule were to be completely struck down, it would allow students from across the country to seek admission in Telangana's medical colleges, potentially disadvantaging the state's permanent residents.

The Court also noted that a more stringent condition has been added that the candidate has to pass the qualifying exam in the State of Telangana.

The bench "read down" Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the 2017 Rules to interpret that the rules should not apply to the permanent residents of Telangana. The High Court construed the same in line with Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Indian Constitution, which allows for special provisions to be made for people from different parts of the state regarding admission to educational institutions.

"Therefore, we read down the Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024. It is held that the aforesaid Rule shall not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana. Thus, by reading down the Rule in the manner indicated above shall also be in consonance of object of Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India i.e., of making special provision to the people of different parts of State for admission to educational institutions."

The High Court also suggested the State Government to frame the guidelines/rules to determine as to when a student can be considered as a permanent resident of the State of Telangana

"We direct that Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024, will be interpreted to mean that the petitioners shall be eligible to admission in the medical colleges in the State of Telangana, if their domicile is of State of Telangana or if they are permanent residents of the State of Telangana. It is stated at the bar that there are no guidelines/rules framed by the State Government to ascertain whether a student is a domicile/permanent resident of the State of Telangana. We, therefore, grant the liberty to the Government to frame the guidelines/rules to determine as to when a student can be considered as a permanent resident of the State of Telangana."

Case Details : THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. Versus KALLURI NAGA NARASIMHA ABHIRAM AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024