# 942. ~ • DR. PRADEEP JAIN ETC v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ETC. 22nd June,·1984

- **Citation:** [1984] 3 S.C.R. 942
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984
- **Bench:** P.N. Bhagwati, AMAR~NDRA NAnl SEN A~D RANG.ANAtH MISRA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/942-dr-pradeep-jain-etc-v-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-22nd-june-1984-8658
- **Pages:** 51

## Headnote

.
.
.
' .
.
'<;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
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.
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
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
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 reservation'in a<,!roi'S$ioni l>e mac!e fort}lemw as to give t!iem preceden~ over tho~·
•
•
.I
.l.
. I
PRADEEP JAIN v. tiNION
943
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"tegfity ot 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
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 theterritory 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
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]
Article 15, clau~es. Cl) ana (2)-~ar discriminati~n on grounds no-t only.of
-·religion, race. caste or sex

## Text

_Characters 0–39,860 of 132,267. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39860 for what follows._

•
A.
B
D
•
•
•
G.
H
942.
~
•
..
DR. PRADEEP JAIN ETC.
v
. 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
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.
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
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
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 reservation'in a<,!roi'S$ioni l>e mac!e fort}lemw as to give t!iem preceden~ over tho~·
•
•
.I
.l.
. I
PRADEEP JAIN v. tiNION
943
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"tegfity ot 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
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 theterritory 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
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]
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.
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[
c
D
•
E
F
0
R
1
a
1
ma
1
n
3
a
8
DCaYaRram Shelly v. International Airport Authority of India &
. G
rs., [ 9 9
. • •. 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.ref ore, 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
D
•
E
. 'F
G
H
•
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
bas no permanen(bome, he_ is in~ested -with a 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
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]
·
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.
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.
1 t 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,
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
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]
D.P, Joshi
0 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-it as a result of Iegaf usage over
the· years. Therefore·, it is strongly urged upon .thC Sta.te'Government io
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]
B
D
E
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
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
adn1it in: medical colleges or.other instit.,utions giving instruction in_ specia~ ·
~ities, less meritorious &tudents when more medtorious $t_udtilts are avaih1.bl~.
G
H
•
! .
•
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 substandard candidates and bring about·f3H ii?: medical competence,_injurious fn
the long run to the very region [96JG-H; 964D-H]
B
c
D
'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 undoubtedly 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
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
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]
F
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.
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 ..
H
. 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
(:~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
. .
..
.l.
r
,
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
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
reserVation rot 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
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,
[1971) Supp. SCR 608, D.P. Joshi v, State of Madhya Bharat, [1955J I SCR
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
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.ludfng 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.
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,
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
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
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
•
B
c
~l n·
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G.
H
'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1984] 3 s.c.k.
' made by the Indian Medical Counci.l which·is the statutory body of medical
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~ ·
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
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 requirerllent 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
··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 question _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
compiomised[by. vnyj 01 hrr consid~iations because that would be deterimenw
tal to the interest Qf the ·natio11. Therefore
~o fara:s admissions·topostgraduate·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 preference 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
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·
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
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.)
. 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]
(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 institUtion_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]
.
-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
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 -important spheres the criterion for
,
. .
r
-
-
-
. selectiof.1_ should be mefi_t only without any institutionalised rc.sCrvations or
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
A
B
c
D
F
G
H •
•
•'
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,
• •
;) G
. ·
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 Resp0ndentState 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.
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
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 ·.
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
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·
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
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
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
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~
.
.
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
.B
c
•
.D
... E
F
G
H
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.
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
this l~d to the. evolution of the concept of a nation. This 9oncept
·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 ·
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
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
and noble objective of the Constitution makers. The Preamble ' ·
declares in highly emotive words pregnant with. meaning and significance :
"We, The People of India, having· solemnly resolved
to consti lute india into a Sovereign Socialist Seculat
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
•
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
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 themselves 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~.
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
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
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
Articles .J 4 and 15 which are intended to strike against discrimination. 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
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 .
. (2) . No ciilzen shall on. gronnds only of religion,
race, caste. s~x, place of birth or any of them, be siibjec\
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
B .
,.
.•
G.
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) 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 provision 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 preserving 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
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 protection 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
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
narrow parochial loyalties based on language and residence within
a state.