Supreme Court Medical Postgraduate Domicile Quota Unconstitutional Case

In January 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict striking down domicile-based reservation quotas in postgraduate medical admissions. A batch of petitions led by Dr. T. Sudha challenged state policies that reserved a significant percentage of PG medical seats exclusively for local residents, arguing these quotas fragmented the national medical education framework. The three-judge bench examined whether such residential preferences violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court ruled that residence-based reservation in PG courses is unconstitutional, emphasizing that merit and uniform national opportunity must prevail. It declared that "we are one nation, one citizen" and quashed all state domicile quotas, directing admissions solely on All India merit rankings.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that domicile-based reservation in PG medical courses is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14. All existing state quotas based on residence were struck down, and admissions were ordered to proceed strictly on All India merit basis.

Whether domicile-based reservation in postgraduate medical courses violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, and whether states can create residential barriers for admission to advanced specialized education.

The ruling dismantled regional barriers in medical specialization, fostering a nationwide meritocracy and allowing aspiring specialists to seek training anywhere in India. It forced several state governments to overhaul their admission frameworks and ignited a renewed national debate on the balance between federal rights, equal opportunity, and affirmative action. The decision was widely praised by medical students and civil society while facing criticism from some regional political parties.