New Delhi, Sept 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court today set aside a Telangana High Court judgment that had read down the state’s domicile rule for admission into medical colleges, and upheld the validity of the regulation requiring candidates to have resided or studied in Telangana for four consecutive years before the qualifying examination in order to avail of the domicile quota.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the rule was neither exclusionary nor arbitrary, and could not be declared unconstitutional.
The court observed, “At the outset, we have to state that without a definition of what constitutes residence or at least without reference to a statute or rule prescribing the issuance of a residence certificate, the directions issued by the High Court would only result in an anomalous situation, making the reservation unworkable and open to a series of litigation.”
The bench further noted that the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended in 2024, already provide safeguards for students displaced from the state due to their parents’ service in defence establishments, public sector undertakings, or government employment.
“The said proviso should allay and mitigate the grievances of those who claim that they were taken out of the state by compulsion of the movement of their parents outside the state by reason of employment in government/all-India services/corporations or public sector undertakings constituted as an instrumentality of the state of Telangana as also defence and paramilitary forces who trace their nativity to the state, subject to the conditions thereunder.
With only the said reservation, we uphold the Rules of 2017 as it stood amended in 2024,” the judgment held.
The controversy centers on Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules, amended on July 19, 2024, which mandated four years of continuous study or residence in Telangana before the qualifying exam.
Students who had completed their intermediate education in Andhra Pradesh and other neighbouring states but were denied the benefit of local quota challenged the rule before the High Court.
In September 2024, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao ruled in favour of the students, holding that permanent residents of Telangana need not fulfill the four-year condition.
The High Court read down Rules 3(a) and 3(iii), stating that permanent residents should be entitled to domicile benefits and that such an interpretation was consistent with Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, which provides for special provisions in admissions.
However, it declined to strike down the amendment altogether, reasoning that doing so would open medical admissions in Telangana to students across the country.
Following this ruling, the State Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Appearing in the matter were advocate general A. Sudarshan Reddy for the State, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the individual appellants, and senior advocates PB Suresh, Raghenth Basant, Prakash Deu Naik, along with Advocate Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, for the respondents.
Senior advocate S. Sriram represented an impleader.
By restoring the four-year domicile requirement, the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the state’s authority to regulate admissions in its medical colleges while ensuring limited exceptions for students compelled to study outside Telangana due to parental employment.
The ruling is expected to significantly impact medical aspirants from both Telangana and neighbouring states.
