Authored By – RIKTIKA, ASIAN LAW COLLEGE
Edited By – Rajarshi Tripathi
ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This case concerned admission in U.G and P.G courses in medical courses where every state and Union territory followed the uniform and consistent decision for giving preferences to those students who have domicile or permanent residents of a State for a very long period from 3 to 20 years and also to those students who have studied in any educational institutional of a particular from long years between 4 to 10 years. But the situation arises that the applicant has the domicile when taking an admission. In this case, the Petitioner appealed before the Supreme Court to challenge the order of the Delhi High Court who wanted to take admission in the MBBS and MDS courses in distinct universities of different States and also the Union Territory of Delhi and challenged the domicile and institutional choice requirements as it is violated the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The issue that arises is whether admission to medical courses in the institutions of a State is only restricted to those students who have a residence or domicile for a specific number of years. Also, any reservation can be made to them over those who do not have domicile or residents of a State except of merit.
Keywords – Constitution, States, Union Territory of Delhi, Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Domicile
CASE DETAILS
| Judgement Cause Title / Case Name | Dr. Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India and ors. |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 6392 of 1983 |
| Judgement Date | 22/06/1984 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Quorum / Constitution of Bench | Bhagwati, P.N., Sen, Amarendra Nath (J), Mishra Rangnath |
| Author / Name of Judges | Bhagwati, P.N. |
| Citation | AIR 1984 SC 1420, 1984 SCR (3) 942 |
| Legal Provisions Involved | Article 5, Article 14, Article 15, Article 16(2), Article 19(1), Article 301, and Article 141 of Constitution of India |
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The judgment involves that INDIA is a nation where unity is exists among the citizens. The decision was given based on there is only one domicile in the nation. The legal fraternity of the nation works in one chain and does not vary from State to State. The Court pronounced that admission in the P.G. medical courses is not desired to any such reservation based on domicile or requirement of the State and if State wants to make a reservation to those students of a particular State that should not exceed 50 percent of the total seats available. The said judgement also instructed that implementation from the academic session 1985-1986 does not create any binding effect over the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Procedural Background of the Case
The petitioner challenged the order and judgement of the Delhi High Court and appealed Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India - Factual Background of the Case
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner desired to take admission in the U.G. and P.G. medical courses in distinct universities of different States and the Union Territory of Delhi. He was not able to take it because of the reservation made for those students who have the domicile or residence of a State. He felt that it was a violation of Articles 15, 16, 19(1) and 301. He filed a petition before the Delhi High Court as aggrieved by the order then appealed to the Supreme Court.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the admission to medical colleges or any other institutions in a State can be confined to those students who have a domicile or residence for a very long period of years?
- Can the State make any reservation in admissions to those with domicile or residence over to them who only possess the merit apart from domicile or resident to meet the requirements of admission?
PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
- It is contended that the consistent and united decision of the States to take admission on the required domicile or residence violated the equality provision mentioned under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
- The State restricted the petitioner to move freely within the territory of India under Articles 19(1) and 301 of the Indian Constitution.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- It is contended that the taking admission to medical colleges or any other institution was relevant but Article 16(2) was not applied. The requirement of domicile or residence for admission to a medical in a State cannot be declared unconstitutional based on the violation of Articles 15(1) and (2).
- Article 16(2) cannot take as a ground for discrimination because it is based on place of birth and not based on residence. The contention placed reliance on D.P Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat where it stated that residence and place of birth are two different concepts in law and fact both.
RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 14 – It states that “The State shall not deny to any persons equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
- Article 15(1) – “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth of any of them.
(2) – No citizen shall on grounds only of religion, race, caste. sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-
(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 public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3) – Nothing 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 of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”
c. Article 16(2) – “No citizen 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 respect of, any employment or office under the State.”
JUDGEMENT
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Apex Court held that admission to MBBS course based on the All India Examination then preference made to the selected candidates. It was held that admission takes in P.G. courses like M.S, M.D would be given not based on domicile or residence within the State. Certain percent of seats to be reserved to those who have domicile or residence upto 50% of the total seats available and not more than that. The same instructions would be revised by the Indian Medical Council. The Court also directed that there are super specializations as neurosurgery and cardiology then no reservation would be made and admission will take based on merit on the national level.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The pronouncement of judgment that reservation will not be done at P. G. courses in medical and if States wants to give preferences to their own State’s residence or having their domicile that would not exceed the 50% in overall seats in India. The petitioners claimed or alleged the violation of Articles 15 and 16 but it is based on place of birth and not based on residence. Both are different concepts seen in various judgments. The decision with reasoning was appropriate where the State can also take admission and other States students can also get admission in the left 50%.
REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred
- Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1014
- D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, [1955] 1 SCR 1215
- Vasundro v. State of Mysore, [1971] Suppl. SCR 381
- Jagdish Saran v Union of India, [1980] 2 SCR 831
- Rajendran v. State of Madras. [1968] 2 SCR 786
- Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1971]2 SCR 430
- Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society and Anr. v State of Gujarat. [1974]1 SCR 717
Important Statutes Referred
- Constitution of India, 1950
