DR. PRADEEP JAIN ETC. v. . UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .. ETC.

• DR. PRADEEP JAIN ETC.

v B . 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 D 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. .I 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 G. 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 H 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 reserva- tion'in a<,!roi'S$ioni l>e mac!e fort}lemw as to give t!iem preceden~ over tho~·

PRADEEP JAIN v. tiNION 943 .l. who dcrnot p.osseSs •domicile' or residential qualification within the State, A .irrespective of merit.

· Disposing of the writ petitions and the civil appeal •

. 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.refore, 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 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 D a bas no permanen(bome, he_ is in~ested -with 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 E 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] ·

. 'F 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. G 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. 1t 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, H 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

p. 945 Copy page pinpoint

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 B 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]

0 D D.P, Joshi 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-itas 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]

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 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 H adn1it in: medical colleges or.other instit.,utions giving instruction in_ specia~ · ~ities, less meritorious &tudents when more medtorious $t_udtilts are avaih1.bl~.

.. 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 sub- standard candidates and bring about·f3H ii?: medical competence,_injurious fn the long run to the very region [96JG-H; 964D-H]

B '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 undou- btedly 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 c 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 D 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]

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.

F 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 ..

.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 H (:~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

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 B 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 reserVationrot 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 c 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, ~l [1971) Supp. SCR 608, D.P. Joshi v, State of Madhya Bharat, [1955J I SCR n· 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 E .l. 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.lud- fng 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. F

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, r 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 G 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 H 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 •

' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.k. ' made by the Indian Medical Counci.l which·is the statutory body of medical A 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~ · B 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 c 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 require- rllent 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 D ··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 ques- tion _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 E compiomised[by. vnyj 01 hrr consid~iations because that would be deterimenw tal to the interest Qf the ·natio11. Therefore ~o fara:s admissions·topost- graduate·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 pre- G. ference 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 H 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· A 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 B 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.) c . 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] D (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 institU- tion_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] . F -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 G 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 r - -important spheres - the criterion - for . 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

•' 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, .· 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 Resp 0ndent- State 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. G 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 ·. B 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 c 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· '· E 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 F 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~

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. .B 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 a this l~d to the. evolution of the concept of nation. This 9oncept c ·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 · .D 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 ...E 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 F and noble objective of the Constitution makers. The Preamble ' · declares in highly emotive words pregnant with. meaning and signi- ficance :

"We, The People of India, having· solemnly resolved to consti lute india into a Sovereign Socialist Seculat G 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 • H 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 B 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 them- selves 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~. c 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 D 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 E 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 F Articles .J 4 and 15 which are intended to strike against discrimi- nation. 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 G 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 . ff . (2) . No ciilzen shall on. gronnds only of religion, race, caste. s~x, place of birth or any of them, be siibjec\

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 ,. . (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 provi- sion 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 preserv- ing 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 G. 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 protec- tion 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 A 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 E

narrow parochial loyalties based on language and residence within a state. Today unfortunately, a citizen who has his permanent residence in a state entertains the feeling that he must have a preferential claim to be appointed to an office or post in the state or to be admitted to an educational institution within the state F vis-a-vis citizen. who has his permanent residence in another state, because the latter is an outsider and must yield place to a citizen who is a permanent resident of the state, irrespective of merit. This, in our opinien, is a dangerous feeling which, if allowed to grow, indiscriminately, might one day break up the country into fragments, though, as we shall presently point out, the principle of equality of opportunity for education and advance- ment itself may justify, within reasonable limits, a preferential policy based on residence. · 1 . We may point out at this stage that though Article !5 (2) clauses H (! l and (2) bars discrimination on grounds not only of religion, race, caste or sex but also of place of birth, Article 16 (2) gees

956 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R. A further and provides that no dtizen 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 state employment. So far as employment under the state, or ani local or other authority is concerned, no citizen can be given preference nor can any discrimination be practised against him on ihe ground only of • residence. It would thus appear that residential requirement would be unconstitutional as a condition of eligibility for employ- • ment or appointment to an office under the State and having regard to the expansive meaning given to the word 'State' in Ramana Dayaram She tty v. International Airport Authority of India c & Ors."\, !tis obvlous that this constitutional prohibition would also cover an office under any local or other authority within the State. or any corporation .. such as a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality or agency of the State. But Article 16 (3) provides an exception to this rule by laying. down that Parliament may make a law "prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of 'D • employment or appointment to an office under the government of, or any local or other authority, in a state or union territory, any requirment as to residence within that state or union territory prior to such employment.. " or app~intment Parliament alone is given the right to enact an' exception to the. ban on discrimination based on residence and that too only with respect to position.s within the employment of a State Qovernment. But even so, without any parliamentary enactment permitting them to do so,' many of the State Governments have been pursqing policies of localism since long and these policies-are ·now quite wide spread. Parliament has in fact ex~rCised little control over these policies States. . The only action whi,ch Parliament has taken under Article 16 (3) giving p it the.right to set. residence requirements has been the enactment of'the Public Emp!Oyment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 aimed at aboiishing all existing residence requirements in the States and enacting exceptions only in the case of the special instanc.es of Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Himchal Pradesh. There is therefore at present no parliamentary enactment permitting G , preferential policies based on residence requirement except in the case of Andhra Pradesh, Manipi1r Tripura and Himachal' J Pradesh where the Central Government bas been given the right to issue directions setting residence requirements in the subordi- nate servic~. Yet, in the face of Article 16. (2), some of the H States are adopting 'sons of the soil' policies prescribing reservation

(I) [1979] 3 SCR 11)14

PllADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 957

or preference lxioed on domicile or reoi,lence requirement for employment or appointment to an office under the government of a· State or any local oi other authority or public seCtor corpora- tion OP any other .corporation .which is an instrumentality or agency of th~ State. Prima facie this would s~em to be consiitu- tionally impermissible though we do nnt wish to express any definite opinion upon it, since it does not directly arise for consideyation in these writ petitions and civil appeal.

But, it is clear that so far as admissions to ·an educational institution such as a medical college are concerned, Article 16(2) has no application, If, therefore, there is any residence require- c ment for admission to a medical college in a State, it cannot be condemned as unconstitutional on ground of violation of Article 15 clauses (1) and (2). Nor can Article 16(2) be invoked for invalidaiing such residence reqi1irement because these clauses prohibits discrimi- nation on ground of pl~ce of birth and not on ground .of residence and, as pofoted out by this Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of D Madhya Bharatr'l, residence and place of birth are "two distinct conceptions with different connotations both in law and in fact"'. ·The only provision of the Constitution on the touch-stone of.which such residence requirment can be required to be tested is Article 14 and that is precisely the challenge which falls to be considered by ns in these writ p_etitions. E

· Now there are in our country in almost all States residence re9uirements for admission to a medical college. Sometimes the requiremen! is phrased by saying that the applicant mmt have his domicile in the State. We must protest against the use of the ward 'domicile' in relation to a State within the union of India. The word 'domicile' is to identify th.e personal law by which an individual is governed in respect of various ·matters 0

such as the essential validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage on the proprietary rights of husband- and wife, jurisdiction in divorce and nullity of marrfage, illegitimacy, l~gitimation and adoption and testamentary antl intestate succession to moveables. 'Domicile' as pointed out in Halsbury's laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 8 paragraph 421, "is the legal relationship between an individual and a territory with a distinctive legal system which invokes that system as his personal law." "(Emphasis supplied.) It is well settled that the domicile of a person is in .H

• (I) [1955] I SCR 1215

958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.

A that country in which he either has or is deemed by Jaw to have his permanent home "By domicile" said Lord Cranworth. in Wicker v. Homcsl'' we mean home, the permanent home.' The notion which lies at .the root of the concept 'of domicile is that of' permanent home." But it is basitally a· legal concept for.the purpose · of determining what is the personal Jaw applicable to an B individual and even if an individual has no permanent- home; he is iuvested with a domicile by law. There are two main classes of domicile : domicile of origin tllat is communicated by 'operation of law to each person at birth, that is the domicile of his. father cir his mother according as he is legitimate or illegitimate and domicile of choice which every person ot full age- is free to c acquire in substitution for that which he presently possesses. The domicile of origin attaches to· an individual by birth while .the domicile of choice is acquired by residence in a territory subject to a distinctive legal system, with the intention to r.eside there ·permanently or indefinitely. Now the area of domicile, whether it be domicile of origin or domicile of choice, is the country which D bas the. distinctive legal system a'Dd not merely the· particular place in the country where the individual resides. This position is brought out clearly and ·emphatically in paragraph 422 of Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 8 wh_ere _it is stated : "Each person who has, or whom the law deems to :E have, his permanent home within the territorial limits of a single system of law is domiciled in the country over which the system extends ; and he is domiciled in the whole of that country even though his·home may be. fixed at a particufar spot within it." What woulabe the position under a federal polity is also set out in the same paragraph.of volume 8 of Halsbury's Laws.of England. F (Fourth Edition) : "In f~deral states some branches of law are within the competence of the federal authorities and for these purposes the whole federation will be subject to a single system oflaw and an individual may be spo~en of as domiciled in the federation as a whole ; other branches of Jaw are within the competence- of the states or provinces of the federation and the G individual will be domiciled in one state or province only.'' This · ·being the true legal position in regard to domicile, let us proceed to consider whether there .can be anything like a domicile in !I state forming part of the Union of Ind4t.

ff ·Now it is. clear on a reading of the Constitution that it

PkADEEP JAIN v. UNION (/)hagwati, J.) 95<)

recognises only one domicile, namely, domicile in .India. Article 5 A of the Constituti~n is clear and explicit on this point and it refers only to one domicile,. nam<;ly, "domicile in the territory of . India." Moreover, it must be remembered that India is' not a federal state in the traditionai sense of · that term. It is not a compact of sovereign states which have come fo- gether to form a. federation by ceding a part of their sovereignty D to the federal states. It has undoubetedly certain federal features but it is still not a federal state and it bas only one citizen· ship, namely, the citizenship of India. It has also one single unified legal system which extends throughout the country. It is not possible to say that a distinct and separate system of law c prevails in each State forming part of the Union of India. The ' leg~! system which prevails through-out the territory of India is · one single indivisible system with. a single unified justicing system having the Supreme Court of India at the apex of the hierarchy, which lays down the law for the entire country. It is true that with respect. to subjects set out in List II of the Seventh D Schedule to the Constitution, the States have the power to make laws ~nd subject to · the 'over-riding power of Parliament, the States can also make laws· witjl respect t.o subjects enumerated· in List III of the Seventh Schedule to· the Constitution, but the legal system unoer the rubric of which such laws are made by the States is a single legal system which may truly be described . E as the Indian Legal system. It would be absurd· to suggest that the legal system varies from State to State or that the legal system of a State is different from the legal system of the Union of India ; merely because with respect to the subjects within their legislative competence, the States jiave power to make laws .. The concept of 'domicile' has no relevance to the app.licability. of. municipal laws, whether made by the Unioµ of India or by the St.ates. It ~·.- would not, therefore, in our opinion be right to say that a citizen of India is d.omiciled in one state or.another forming part of the Uni.on of India. The domicile which he has is only one domicile, namely, domicile in the territory of India. When a person who : is permanently resident in one State goes to another State with intention to reside there jlermanently or indefinitely, his domicile does not undergo any .change : he does not acquire a new domicile of choice. His domicile remains the same, namely, Indian domi- cile. We think it highly deterimental to the concept of unity and integrity of India to think in. terms of State domicile. It ·is true and there we agre: with the argument advanced cin behalf of the State Governments, that the . word 'domicile' in the Rules of

960 S\JPREME COURT REPORTs [1984) 3 S.C.R. . . some of the' State Governments prescriqing domicilary requirement for admission to medical colleges situate .within their territories, is used n·oUn its technical legal sense but ·in. a popular sense as meaning residence and is intended to convey tbe idea of intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. That' is, in fact the sense in which the word 'domi~ile' was under~to'od by a 'five Judge B Bench of.this Court in D. P. Joshi's case (supra) while construing a Rule prescribing capitation fee for admission to a medical cqllege in the State or. Madhya Bharat. and it was in the same . sens~ that word 'domicile' was unde,stood in Rule 3 of the Selection Rules made by the State of Mysore in Vasundra v. State of MysoreJ'l W~ would also, therefore, interpr.et the word c 'domicile' used in the Rules regulating admissions to medical colleges framed by some of the State9' in the same loose sense of. permanent residence .and not in the technical sense .in which it is used in private international law. But even so we wish oo warm against the use of the word 'domicile' with reference to States forming part of the Union ..of India, because· it is a word D which is likely to conju;e up'the notion of an independent State and encourage 'in a subtle and insidious manner the dormant ~overeign impulses of different regions. We think it is dangerous to use a legal concept for conveying a sense different from that which is ordinarily associated with it as a result of legal usage E · over the years. When we use a word which has come to represent a: coi:;cept or idea, for conveying a different .concept or idea it is easy for the.mind to slide into an assumption that the verbal identity is accompanied in all its sequences by identity of meaning, The concept of domicile if used for a purpose. other· tban its legitimate purpose may give rise to lethal radiations which F may in the lorrg run tend to break up the unity and integrity of the country. We would, therefore, strongly urge upon the State Governments to exercise this wrong use of the expression 'domi-. cile' from the rules regulatfog admissions to their educational '·' . institutions and particularly medical colleges and to desist from. introduc!ng and maintaining domiciliary requirement as a condition· ~f eligibility for such admissions. · We may now proceed· to consider whether .residential require- ment or institutional preference in admissions to techt;iical and medical colleges can be regarded as · constitn.tionally permissible. Can it stand the test of Article 14 or does it fall foul of it and )- ff must be struck down as constitutionally invalid·.. It is not pos~ible to answer this qt~estion byJ a si1nple "yes,' or "no". It raises a --- ~- ·----~-- -------- . (I) [1971} Suppl. SCR 381

PRADEEP JAIN_.v. UNIO.~ (Bhagwaii, J.) 961

delicate but cJmplex problem involving consideration of divers factors in tbe light of varying social and economic facts and calls for a bitlanced and harmonious adjustment of competing interests. But, 'before we embark upvn a consideration of this quei;tion, it · m~y be pointed out that there is before us one Civil Appeal, namely, C.A.No.6392 of 1983 filed by Rita Nirankari and five writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos.8882 of 1983, 8883 of 1983,. 9618 of 1981, 10658 of 1983 and 10761 of 1983 filled by Nitin Aggarwal, Seema Garg, Menakshi, Alka Aggarwal and Shalini Shailendra Kumar respectively. These civil appeal and writ petitions relate to admissions to medical colleges affiliated to the Delhi University and situate in the Union Territory of Deihi. Then we have writ petition No. 982 of 1983 filed by Dr. Mrs. c Reena Ranjit Kumar and writ petition No. 92.19 of 1983 filed by Nandini Daftary which relate.to admission to the M.D.S. Course and M.B.B.S. course respectively of Karnataka Universjty. We have also writ petition No. 6091 of 1983 filed by Dr. Pradeep Jain seeking admission to the M.D.S. course in King George Medical D College, Lucknow affiliated to 'the Lucknow University. When these writ petitions and civil appeal were admitted, we made interim orders in some of them granting provisional admission to the petitioners .and we may make it clear that wherever we have -granted provisional admissions shall notbe disturbed; irrespe.ctive of the result of these civil· appeal and writ petitions. We may E also point out that since these civil appeal and writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of residentfal require- ment and institutional preference · in regard to admissions in medical colleges in the States of Karnataka and Uttar Prade>h and the Union "Territory of. Delhi and we were informed that it is the uniform and "consistent practice in almost all States to provide for such residential requirement or institutional preference we directed that notices of lhese civil appeal and writ petitions

' may be issued ro the Union of India and the,States of Karnataka, Kerala, ·Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab; Rajasthan, Tamilnadu .. and West Bengal and the State Govern- ments to which such notices are issued shall file their 'counter G •affidavits dealing ii! parti,ula~ .with the que~tion of reservation in admissions on the basis of domicile or residential requirement within. two weeks from the date of service of such notic.es. Some _j of the State Governments could not ftle their · counter affidavits within the time granted by us and they accordingly made an H application for extension of time and by an order dated 30th August, 1983 we extended the time for filing of counter affidavits

962 SUPREME COURT REPOR ts [1984] 3 s.c.R..

and directed the State Governments to set out in their counter affidavits facts and figures showing as to ~hat is the procedure which is being followed by them so far as admissions to medical colleges in their States are concerned. It appears that most of· the state Governments to whom notices ~ere issued filed their counter affidavits and though no notice was directed to be issue<) to the B State of Himachal Pradesh, the Goverpment of that State also filed a counter affidavit. The Delhi University in its counter affi· ·davit gave a brief synopsis summarising the domicile or residential requirement or institutional preference followed by· each State Government for admission to the medical colleges situate within its territory. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present judge ment to reproduce in detail the precise domicile or residential requirement or institutional preference ·adopted and prevailing in different States in regard to admissions to medical colleges. Suffice it to state that for admission to M.B.B.S. course,' domicile. or perma• nent residence .is required in some States, residence for a specified numb.er of years ranging from three to twe"nty years is required in D some other States while in a few States.the requirement is that the candidate should have studied ill an educationai institution in the State for a continuous period varying from four to ten years or the candidate should be a bona fide resident of one State and in case of admssions to M.D.S. Course 'iµ Uttar Pradesh the candi· E date should be either a citizen of India, domicile of whose father is in. Uttar Paradesh and who himself is domiciled in . Uttar Pradesh .or a citizen · of India, domicile of whose father may not be in Uttar Pradesh but who himself has resided .in Uttar Pradesh for not less than five years at the time of making the application and so far as admissions to M.D.S. Course in Karnataka I' are concerned, the candidate should have . studied for at least five years in an educational institution in the State of Karnataka prior to his joining B.D.S. Course. The position in regard to admissions in medical colleges in the Union Territory of Delhi is a a little different, because there, out of total of 410 seats available G for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the three medical colleges affiliat~d to the Delhi University, }48 are reserved seats and 262 are · non-reserved seats and for fiiling in the 262 ·non-reserved seats, an" entrance examination is held and the first 50 seats are filled from· amongst the eligible candidates who pass the entrance examin~tion in order of merit and the remaining 212 seats are ~lied, again on ;- merit, but by candidates who have passe_d t(leir qualifying exami- nation from the schools situate in the Union Territory of Delhi

PkADEEl> JAIN v. UNION(Bhagwati,-J,l 963 only. It will thus be seen that in almost all States and Union A Territories admissions to medical colleges are based either on· residence requirements or on institutional preferences. The question is ;,,hether such reservations or preferetlces are consti- tutionally valid.when tested on the touch-stone of Article 14. • There can be no doubt that the demarid for admission _to medical colleges has over the last .two decades increased enor- . inously and outstripped the availability of seats in the medical • colleges in the country. Today large numbers of young men and women are clamouring to get admission in the medical colleges not only because they can find gainful employment for themselves but they.can also serve. the people and the available ~eats in the medical colleges are not sufficient to meet the increasing demand. The proportion of medical practitioners to tlie population is very low compared to some other countries and there is considerable unmet need for medical services. It is possible' that in highly urbanised areas, there may be a surfeit of doctors but there are large tracts of rural areas throughout the country where competent and ade- quate medical services are not available". The reason partly is that the doctors who have been brought up and educated in urban areas or who are trained in medical colleges situate in cities and big towns acquire an indelible urban .slant and prefer not to go to the rural areas, but moie- importantly, ·proper and adequate facilities are not provided and quite often even necessary medi- cines and drugs are not supplied in rural areas with the result that the doctors, even ·if otherwise inclined to go to rural ·areas with a view to serving tjie people, find that they cannot be of any service to the people and this acts as a disincentive against doctors setting down in rural areaeyi. What is, therefore, necessary F . is to set up proper and . adequate structures in rural areas where competent medical services can be provided by the doctors and some motivation must be provided to the doctors servicing those areas. But, as the posi.tion stands today, there is considerable paucity of seats ·in 1'.iedical colleges to satisfy the increasing demand of students for admission and some principle has, there· G fore, to be ·evolved for making selection of students for admission to the medical colleges and suGh principle has to be in conformity with the requirement of Article 14. Now, the primary imperative. of Article 14 is equal opportunity for all across the nation for education and advancement and,· as pointed out by Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Saran v. Union of Indial'l "this has burning relevance H - - ( 1 } (1980] 2 S.C.R. 83!.

SUPl!EME cotiu REPOI! ts

A tu our times when the country is gradually being broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls" by surrender to narrow parochial loyalties. What is fundamental, as an· enduring value of our polity is guarantee to each of equal opportunity to unfold the full potential of his personality. Any one anywhere, humble or B h_igh, agrestic or urban, man or woman, whatever be his language ..or religion, place of birth or residence, is entitled to be afforded , for ~qual ·chance for admission . to any secular "educational course cultural growth, training facility, specialitY"or employment. It would run counter to the basic principle of equality before the Jaw and equal protl'ction of the law if a citizen by reason of his c residence in State A, which ordinarily in the commonality of cases would be the result of his birth in a place silua'.e within that State, should have opportunity for education or advancement. which is denied to. another citizen because he happens to be resident in State B. It is axiomatic that talent is not the monopoly of the resident of any particular State; it is more .or less evenly D . distributed and given proper opportunity and env.ironment, every . one has a pr.aspect of rising to the peak. What is necessary is equality of opportunity and that cannot he made dependent npon where a citizen resides. If evety c_itizen is afforded equal oppor- tunity, genetically and environmen~ally, to ~evelop his potential he will be able in his own ·way to manifest his faculties fully leading to all rnunQ. improvement in excellence. The" philosophy • and pragmatism of universal .excellence through equality of oppor- tunity tor cducaction· and advancement across the- nation is part of our· founding faith and constitutional ·creed. The effort must, therefore, always be to selec.t the best and mJst meritorious F ·students for admission to technical institutions and medical colleges by providing equal opportunity to all citizens in the ' country and no citizen c~n -legitimately, without serious deteriment ' ( to the unity and integrity of the nation, be regarded as an outsider in our constitutional set up,. Moreover. it would be against national interest to admit in medical colleges or other institutions G· giving instruction in specialities, less meritori8us students when more meritorious students are available, simply ·because the former are pe.rmanent residents or .residents for a certain' number of years in the State While the latter are not, though both categories are citjzenA of India. Exclusion H of more meritorious students on the grou1td that they are not resident within the State would be likely. to promote sub-standard candidates and bri~g about fall in medical competence, injQrious ·

PRAOEEP ·JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 965

in the long run to the very region. "It is no blessing to inflict A quacks aild medical midgets on people by whole-sale sacrifice of taient at the thresh-hold. Nor can the very best be rejected from admission beca.use th~t will be a national loss and the .interests of· no region can be higher than those of the nation." TP.e primary consideration in selection af candidates for admission.to the medical colleges must, therefore, be merit. The object of any B 0

rules which may be made for regulating admissions to the medical colleges must be to secure the best and most meritorious students 1'his was the consideration which weighed with the Court in Minor f. Raj~ndran v. State of Madras('\ in straiking down a rule made by the State of Madras allocating seats in medical colleges c ·on district-wise basis. Wanchoo, C.J. Speaking on behalf of the C.onrt, obse·rved: "The question whether distriCtwise allocation is yiolative of Art. 14 will'depend on what is the object tb be achieved in th.e matter ,of admission to medi ·al colleges. Considering the fact that there is a large num· D . ber of candidates' than seats available, selection has got· to be · made. ' The object of selection can orily be to secure the best possible material for admission 'to colleges subject the provision for socially and educationally back· ward classes. Further whether selection is from the E socially and educationally backward classes or from the general pool, the object of sele<;tion must . be to secure tbe best possible talent from the two · sources. · If that jg the object, it must necessarily follow th)lt that object ·w0uld be defeated if seats are allocated district by dHrict. It cannot be and has not been denied that the ·oltject of F ~-

selection is to secure the best pos~ible talent from the two • sources so that the country may have the best possible doctors lf that is the object, that argument on behalf of the petitioners appellant is that tbat object cannot possibly be served by allocating seats districtw)se. · It is true that Art. 14 does not forbid elassification, but the G classification has to .be justified on the basis of the nexus· between the classification and the object to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reaso- nable cl ssification. · Tfie fact however that the classifi: cation by itself 1s reasonable is µot enough to support it unless there is nexus betwe.en the classification and the H ------,- (!) [1968] 2 S,C.R. 786.

966 SUPRFME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.Jl. object to. be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be • achieved in a case of the kind with which we are concer" ned is to get the best talent for ad\)lission to professional • colleges, the allocation· of seats districlwise has no reaso· nable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything such allocation will result in many cases ill the object being destroyed, and if that is so; tbe clas!Oification, even if reasonable, would result in discrimination, inasmuch as better ql,la!ified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts may be admitted from either of the two sources." c Then again in Periakaruppan v. State. of Tamil Nadu! 1\, the sli:me consid.eration prevailed with tbe Court in striking down the scheme of selection of candidates for admission to medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the ye!lr 1970- 71. It was a unit-wise scheme under which the medical colleges in the city of Madras were constituted as one unit and each of the· other medical colleges in the Mofussil was constituted as a unit and a separate · selection. committee· .was set up for each ·of these units. · The intending applicants wete asked to apply to ·. any one. of the committees but were advised to apply to the committee ne1rest to their place of residence a,nd if they applied fo more than one committee, their applications were to be for-· warded by the Government to only one of. the committees. The petitioners who were unsuccessful in getting admission, challenged the validity of this unit-wise scheme and contended tJtat the unit· wise scheme infringed Article 14 of the Constit11tion, inter alia, because the applicants of some of the unils were in a better • F position rtlan those who applied to other .units, since the. ratio between the applic.ants and the number of seats in each unit vari~d and several applicants who secured lesser marks than the petitioners were selected merely because their upplic~tions .came to .be considered in other units,, This challenge was upheld by tbe Court and Hegde, J. speakiag on be.half of the Court observed : "We shall first take up the plea reg~rding the division of medical seats on 11nitwise basis. It .is admitted that minim!lm marks required for being selected in some unit is less than.in the other. units. Hence prima facie the scheme in question results in discrimination against some of the applicants. Before a classification can be justified ' . ~ ~ . ' it inust be based on an objective criteria ancl furt!\er it (I) [~911J 2 ·s.cR 430.

) PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 96~

must have reasonable nexus with the object intended "to be. achieved. The object intended to be achieved in the present case is to select the best candidates for being admitted to Medical Colleges. That object cannot be satisfactorily achieved by the method adopted." These two decisions do not bear directly on the question raised before us, _namely, whether any reservation can be. legitimately .B made in admissions to medical colleges on the basis of residence requirement within the State or any _institutional pre,fererice can be given students who have passed" the qualifying examination held by the same university., They deal with two .specific instances of intra·state dis.crimination between citizens residiQg within the same State and strike down such discrimination as violative of c Article 14.on the ground that it Ins no /ational relation to the object of selection, namely, to get the best and most meritorious students and, in fact, tends to defeat such object, _But, ·in taking this view, they clearly and categorically proceed on the basis of the principle that t_he object of any valid scheme of_ admissions .D . must be to "select the best candidates for being admitted to medical colleges" and that if any departure is to be made "from the principle of selection on the basis of merit" it must be justified on the-touchstone of Art. 14. But let us understand what we mean when we say that selection for admission to medical colleges m'i1st be based on merit. What is merit which must govern the process of selection ? It undoubt~dly cons_ists of a high degree of intelligen£e coupled with a . keen and incisive mind, .sound knowledge of the basic • subjects - and infinite· capacity -for hard work, but that Js not . enough ; it also calls for a sense of ~ocial commitment and dedica .. tion to fye cause of the poor. We agree with Krishna Iyer, J. when he says in Jagdish Saran's case (s_upra) : "If potential for rural service or aptitude for renderin11 medical attention among back- ward people is a criterion ef merit-and it, undoubtedly, is in a land of sickness and misery, neglect and penury, wails and tears- theti, . surely' belonging, to a university catering to a deprived :G region·is a plus point of merit. Excellence· is composite and the heart and.its sensitivity are as precious· in the case of educational values as the head and its creativity and social medicine for the common people is more relevant than peak performance in Freak cases." Merit cannot be measured in terms of marks alone, but human sympathies are equally important.. The heart is as much H a factor as the head in assessing the social, value of a member of he l)lcdical profession. This is also an aspect w_hich ma~, tQ

968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 984) 3 S.C.R.

A ·. the limited extent pos~ible, be borne in m·ind while determining .merit for selection of candidates fot admission to medical colleges though ·concededly it would-not be easy to do so, since jt is a· factor which is extremely difficult to judge and not easily suscepti, ble to evaluation. B We may now proceed to consider what are the circumstances in which departure may justifiably be made from the principle of selection· .based on merit.' Obviously, such departure can be justified only on equality-oriented grounds, .for whatever be the principle of selection • fotlowed for making admissions ' # to medical •

c colleges, it must satisfy the test·of equality. Now the concept of equality .under the Co.nstitution is a dynamic .concept. It takes within its sweep ev·ery pr.ocess of equalisation and protective discrimination. Equalitv mmt not remain mere idle incantation butit must become a: livin.g reality for the large masses of people. In a hierachical. sooiety with an indelible ·feudal stamp and ·incurable actual inequality, it is absurd to suggest that progressive measures to eliminate group disabilities and promote collective equality are entagonistic to equality on the ground the every individual· is entitled to equality· of opportunity based p~rely on merit judged by .the mark. obtained by him .. We cannot counte· • nance such a suggestion, for to do so would niake that equality E clause sterile and perpetuate· existing inequalities. Equality of ·opportunity is. not simply a matter of legal equality. I ts existence depends riot merely on the absence -of disabilities but on the presence of abilities. Where, therefore, there is inequality, in fact, legal equality always tends- to accentuate it. What the fam~us poet Willian Blanks said graphically is very true, namely, F "One law for the Lion· and the Ox is oppression," Those who are unequal, in fact, can.not treated by identical standards ; that may be equality in law but it would certainly not be real equa·lity. It is: therefore, necessary to take into account de facto in equalities ~hich exist in the society and to take affirmative action by G - way of giving preference to the. soc_ial!y and economically dis- advantaged persons or inficting handicaps on· those more advan- tageously placed, in order to bring about real ·equality. Such affirmative action thourh apparenlly discriminatory is calculated to produce equality. an a broader basis by eliminating de facto inequalities and placing the weaker sections of the community on a footing of equality with the stronger and more powerful section, so that each member of the ·co Jl'munity, whatever is his births occupation or social position may enjoy <qua! opportunity of

PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 969 • using to the full his natural endowments of physique, of character A and of intelligence. We "may in this connection usefully quote what Mathew, J. said in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society ., and Anr. v. State of Gujarat1 1l :

"It is obvious that "equality in law precludes discri- B mination of any kind; whereas equality, in fact, may involve the necessity of differential treatment in order to attain a result which establishes an eq1;1ilibrium between different situations."

We cannot, therefore, have arid equality which does not take into account the so<;ial and economic disabilities and inequalities from which large masses of people suffer in. the country ..· Equality in Jaw must produce real equality ; de ljure equality must ulti- mately find its raison d' etre in de facto equality. The State must, therefore, resort to compensatory State action for the purpose of making people who are factually unequal in their wealth, . 0

education or social environnient, equal in specified areas. The State must, to use again t!:ie words of Krishna Iyer. J. in Jagdish Saran's case (supra) weave those special facilities into the web of equility which, in an equitable setting provide for· the weak and promote their levelling up so that, . in the long-.run, the community ~t large may enjoy a general measure of real equal opportunity equality is not negated or neglected' where special provisions are geared to the 'large goal ·of the disabled getting over their disablement consistently with · the general. good and individual merit." The scheme of admission to medical colleges may, therefore, depart from the principle of selection based on merit, where it i,s necessary to do so. for the purpose of bringing about" real equality· of opportunity between those ·who are ·uMquals.

There are, in the applipation of this priridple, two consi- . derations which appear to have weighed with' the Court in justifying departure from the principle of selection based on merit. One is what may be called State interest and the othe~ is what may be described as a region's claim of backwardness. The legitimacy of claim of State interest was recognised explicitly in one of the early decisions of this Court in D.P. Joshi's case (supra) The Rule impugned in this case }Vas a Rule made by the State of H . --',_ (1) [1974) l sec 111at799.

970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

Madhya Bharat for admission to the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore providing that 'ho capitation fee should be charged for students who are bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat but for other non-Madhya .Bharat students, there should be a capitation fee of Rs. 1300for nominees and R!;; 1500 for • oibers. The expression bona fide resident' was defined for the purpopse of this Rule to mean inter a/ia a citizen whose original domicile was in Madhya Bharat provided he had not acquired a domicile elsewhere or a citizen whose original .domicile was not in Madhya Bharat but who. had acquired a domicile in Madhya. Bharat and had resided there for not Jess than five years at the date of the application for admissioi;i. The constitutional vali· dity of this Rule was challenged on the ground that it discrimi· nated between students who were bona fide residents of .Madhya Bharat and students who were not and ~ince this discrimination was based· on residence in the State of Madhya Bharat, it was violativ.e of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court by a majority of four against one held that the Rule was not discrimi· · natry as being in contravention of Article 14, because the classi· fication between students who were bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat and those who were not was based on an intelligible differentia having rational relation to the _object of the Rule. Venkatarama. · Ayyar, J. speaking on behalf of the majority observed':

"The object of the classification underlying the impugned rule was clearly to help to some extent students who are residents of .Madhya Bharat 'in the prosecution ·O"f their studies, and it cannot be disputed that it is quite a legiti- F mate and laudable objective for a State to encourage education within its bordm. Education is a State subject, and one of the\ directive principles declared in Part IV of the Constitutio~ is that the State should make effuctive provision' for education within the limits of its economy .• (Vide Article 41). The State has to contri- G bute for the up keep ·and the running of its educational institutions. We are in this petition concerned with a Medical College,and it is well known that it requires consi· derable finance to maintain such an institution.;lf the State has to _spend money on it, is it unreasonable that it should so order the educational system that the advantage of it would to some extent at least enure for the .benefit of the State 7 A roncession $iven to the reside.nts of the State in the

PRADEEP JAIN V. UNION 971

. mallet of fees is obviously calculated to serve that end, ds presumably some of them might, after passing out of the Co/(ege, settle down as doctors and serve the needs of the • locality.· The classification is thus based on a ground which has a reasonable relation to th.e subject-matter.of • the legislation, and is in consequence not open to attack. It µas been held in The State of Punjab v. Ajab Singh and Anr. that a classification might validly be made on a • . geographical basis. Such a classific;ation ·would be eminently just and reasonable, where it relates to educa- tion which is the concern primarily of the State. The contention, therefore, that the rule imposing capitation fee is in contravehtion of Article 14 must be rejected." c (emphasis supplied)

It may be noted that here discgmination was 'based on residence within the State of Madhya Bharat and yet it waJ ·held justified on the ground that the object of the State in making the . Rules .was to encourage students who werl' residents of Madhya · • / ·Bharat to take up the me4ical course so that "some of th'em might; after passing out from the college, settle down as doctors and serve the 'needs of· the locality" and the Classification made by the Rule had rational relation to this object. This justification I ol' the discrimination based on residence obviously rest 011 the assul!lption that those who were bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat wonld after becoming doctors settle down and serv~ the needs pf the people fa the State. We are not· sure whether· any facts were pleaded in the affidavits justifying ~his assumption • but the judgment of Venkatarama Ayyar, J. show that the decision .t of the majority Judges proceeded on this assumption and that was regarded as a valid ground justifying ·the discrimination made by the impugned Rule. • We may p9int out that iii Minor P. ·Rajendran's r:ase (supra) also, an argument was put forward on behalf of the State Govern- ment that if selection w~s made district-wise, tbose selected from a district were likely to settle' down as practitioners in that-distri- cts so that the districtq were likely to bem:fit from their training. But this argument was rejected by the C0urt and district-wise admission to medical colleges was struck down as constitution- ally invalid. It is significant to note that the Court did not reject tbis ar~nme11t M intrinsically irre/~vant but the only ground on ••

972 SUPRBME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R. • which it was rejected was that "it was neither pleaded' in the counter affidavit of the State nor had the· State placed any facts or •• ,, figures justifying the plea that. stud~nts selected district-wise w.ould settle down as medical practitioners in the respective district where .they resided". It would be interesting to spectulate what court would have decided if tbe State Government had placed suffi· B cient maierial l;>efore the court showing that students coming from different districts .in the State ordinarily settle down as m~dical praetitioners hi th'e respective districts from where they comr.

This Court also upheld reservation ..based on residence c requirement for a period of not less tlian ten years, for adn:iission to medical colleges jn the then State. of Mysore, in the subsequent .decision in N. Vsaundhara's · cirse (supra). The J,'lule which·was impugn.ed in that case was Rule 3 of the Rules for selection of. candidates for admission to· the professional course leading tn MB.BS course in the G6vernment Medical Colleges in the then. State Of Mysore 'and this Rule provided that "no porson who is. not a citize.n of India and who is not,qomiciled and resident in the State l)fMysore for not less than ten years at any time prior to the'Clate of the application for a seat, shall be eligible to apply."· The petitioner's application for admission was rejected on the ground that she had not resided .in the State for ·a period of ten years as required by Rule 3 and she consequently challenged the constitutional validity of that Rule, oli the plea that it violated the right t9 equality guaranteed by Article 14. The . challenge was however negatived and the .constitutional validity of Rule 3 was upheld by a 3 Judge Bench of this Court. The ' Court relied upon the 'decision itt D''P. Joshi's. c~e (supra) and observed: . ·

"If classification based on residence does not impinge upon the principle of equality enshrined in Art. 14 as 11eld by this Court in the decision already cited which is '*' ··' binding upon us, then•the further condition of the resi· dence in the State being there for atleast ten years would . also seem to be equally valid unless. if is ·shown by the petitioner that selection of the period of ten years ma)ces :the classification so unreasonable as to render it arbitrary and with~t any substantial basis ot.intelligible. differen· Ha. The object of framing the impugned rule seems to be to attempt to impart m•dical education to the best talent available ·out of the class of persons who are /ikeiy, so far . (IS it c(ln reasonably be foreseen, to serve as doators, thf ·

. PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwali, J.) 973

inhabitants tJf the State of Mysore. It is true that it is A. , possible to say with absofut_e certainty that all those admit· • ted to the medical colleges would necessarily stay in Mysore State after qualifying as doctors: they have indeed a fundamental right as citizens to settle anywhere in India. and they are also free, if they so desire and can manage, B to go out of India for further studies or even ot_herwise. But these possibilities are permissible and inherent in our ·constitutional set-up and these considerations cannot adversely affect the constitutionality of the otherwise valid rule. The problem as noticed in minor P.- Rajend· ran's case and as revealed by a large number of cases c which have recently come to this Court is that the number of candidates desirous of having medical e.duca- . tton is very much larger than the number of seats availa· hie in medical colleges. The need and demand for doctori in our country ls so great that young .boys a,nd· girls feel that in. medical profession they can both get D gainful employment and serve the people. The State has therefore to formulate with reasonable foresight a just schemes of classification for imparting medical education • to the available candidates which would serve the object and purpose af providing broad · based ·medical. aid to the people of the State and to provide medical. edu· E cation to those who are best suited for such education. Proper ·c1as;ifica\ion inspired by this consideration and selection on merit from ·such classified groups therefore cannot be challenged on the ground of inequality violating • Art. 14. The impugned rule bas not been shown-by the F petitioner to. suffer from the vice.-of unreasonableness. The counter-affidavit filef by the State on the other hand · discloses the purpose to· b.e that of serving the interests of the residents of the Srate by providing me"dical aid for them." · G . ' . . . Here also reservation based on residence requirement of not less than ten years was held. to be non-discriminatory though it denied equality of opportunity for admission to the medical . colleges in, the State to all those who did not satisfy this residence re_quirement. The Court took the view that: the object of the State Government in making such reservatiop based on -residence requirement of not less than ten years was to "impart medical

974 SUPREME COURT RUORTS [1984) p S.C.R. , education to the best talent available out of the class of persons who are likely, so far as it can·reasonably be foreseen', to serve as doctors, the inhabitants of the State". The principle of selection based ·on merit across the board was thus allowed to be i;nodified • by .the claim of State interest in providing broad based medical ·aid fo the people of-the State" and reservation based on residence ·reqt1irement of rlot less than ten years was upheld Sf a valid reser- vation. We find an echo of the same reafoning in the following "' words from the judgment of· Dua,.J. in. D.N. Chancha/a v. Siate . of Mysore1.

"the object of selection for admission to \he medical colleges considered in the background of the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in our Constitution, ajlpears to be to select the' best material from amongst ·the candidates in order not only to provide them with adequate means of livelihood but also .to provide the much needed medical aid to the ·people and to improve public health generally" (Emphasis supplied)

. The claim . of State · foterest in providing adequate medical service to the people of the· Sta(e by impartiµg medical education to student:i who by reason -of their residence in the State wonld. be likely to settle down and serve the people of the State as • doctors has thus been regarded by the Court as a legitimate ground for laying down residence requirement for• admission to medical •. colleges in the State. . ·

We may ~I~o conyeniently at. this stage refer to the decision of this Court in. D.N. Chancha/q's case. (supra); The reservation impugned i'u this_ case was univeisity-wise reservation unde_r which preference for admission to a medical college run by a university was !iiven to students who had passed the. PUC examination of that university and only 20 per cent of the seats were available to those passing the PUC Examination of other universities. The ·petitioner who had passed PUC ·eicamination held by the Bangalore university~ applied for admissio_n to any one of the medical .colleges affiliated to ·the Karnataka . University. But she did no~ come within the merit list on the basis of which 20 per cent of .

'(IJ p971J Suppl. s.c.R. 60S .

PRADBEP JAIN v. UNIOit (.Bhagwati, !.) • tile open seat; wore filled up anJ sirice sile bad not passed the PUC A

.. Examination held by the Karnataka University, her application for admission to a medical college affiliated to the Karndtaka Univ~rsity was rejected. She therefore filed a writ petition qnder Article 32 of the Constitution contending inter alia that the . University wise distribution of seats was discriminatory and being B withotit any rational basis was violative of Article 14. This con- tention was however rejected by a ~ Judge Bench of this Court. Shelet, J. speaking on behalf of the Court . held that there was no . . constitutional infirmit:r, involved in giving preference. to students .who had passed t_he PUC Examination of the same University and gave _the"fol!owing reasons . in supporCof this conclusion: c "The three universities were set up in three different places presumably for the purpose of catering to the ·educational and academic needs of those areas, Obvious- ly one university for the \\hole of the State could neither have been adequate nor feasable to satisfy those needs. Since it woul~ !lot be possible t<;> admit all candidates in· , the medica\ colleges run by the Government, some basis for screening the candidates had to be set up. There can be no manner of doubt, and it is now fairly well settled, that 1he Government, as also other private agencies, who found such centres for medical training, have the right to frame rules for admission so lon,g as those rul_es are not inconsistent with the university statutes andregulationsand do not suffer from infirmities,_ constitutional or otherwise. Since the Universities are . set up for satisfying-the educa- tional needs of different areas where they are set up· a!ld -medical· colleges are established in those areas, it can ' safely be presumed that they also were so set up to satisfy the needs for medical training of those attached to those universities. In our view, there is nothing Undesirable in I ensuring that those attached to such universities have their ambitions to have training in specialised subjects, 0 • · like medicine, satisfied through colleges affiliated to their own universities.. Such a basis for s.election ha.snot .the disadvantage of districtwise or unitwise selection as any student from any part of the State can pass the qualifying examination in. any of the three universities irrespec(ive 'ff of the place of his birth or residence.. Further, the. rules confer a discretion on the selection committee to admit

976 • SUPREME CO}iRT REPORTS \.l 9841 3 S.6. R. A • outsiders upto . 20% of the. total available seats in any . ~· . one of these . colleges, i.e., those who have passed the· • equivalent examination held by any other university not only in the State but also elsewhere in India. It is; there· • fore, impossible to say that the .basis of selection adopted in these rules would defea( the object of the rules as was B said in Ra)endran's case· or, make possible fess merito· rious students obtaining admission at the ~ost of the better candidates. The fact that a candidate having lessermarks might obtain admission at the cost of ano· ther having higher marks from another university does . not necessarily mean that a less mefitorious candidate c gets advantage over a. more meritorious one. As a. well known, different universities have different standards in the examinations held by them. A preference to one attached· to one university in its. own institutions for post· graduate or technical ·training is not uncommon. Rules D giving such a preference are to be found in various uni· versities. Such a system for that reason alone is not to be condemned as' discriminatory' particularly when admis- sion to such a· university by passing a qualifying exami· ' ,f- nation held by it is not precluded by any restrictive qualifications~ such as birth o~ residence, or any other E similar restrictions. In our view, it is not possible to , equate the present basis for selection with these which were·held invalid in the aforesaid two decisions. Furl.her, the Government which bears the financial burden of run- ning the Government colleges if entitled to lay down criteria for admission would be made, provided of course such classification is· not· arbitrary and has a rational b~sis and· a reasonable co1mection with the object of the. rules. So long as. there is no discrimination within. each of such sources, the validity of the rules laying down such sources cannot be successfully challenged. In our . view, tqe·rules Jay down a valid classification. Candidates ·G passing through the qualifying examination h.eld by a university from a class by themselves as distinguished • from those passing through such examination from the other two un(versities. Such a classification has a reaso· nable nexus with the object of the rules, namely, to cater .ff to the needs of candidates who would' naturally look to their own university to advance~their training in technical studies, such as medical studies. 'In .o.ur opinion, the

' PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.)

rules cannot Justly be attacjced on the. ground, of hostile A.· discrimination or as being otherwise in breach of Article 14."

University-wise distribution of seats was thus upheld by .the Court as constitutionally valid even though it was not in confor- B mity with the principle ,of Sel~ion based on merit and marked" i a departure from it. The view taken by the court was that univer- sity-wise distribution of seats was not discriminatory.becaus·e it was based on a rational principle .. There was nothing unreasonable in providing ·that in granting admissions to medical college* • affiliated to a university, reservation shall be made in favour of c c'andidates who have passed. PUC ·examination of that university, lirstl¥, because it would bequite legitimate for student~ w)lo are . .attached to a university to entertain. a ' desire to. "have ' . training in specialised subjects, like medicine, satisfied through colleges affiliated to their own" university since that promote institutional continuity which .has its 0°wn value and secohdly, because any student from ally · part of the country could pass ihe qualifying examination of that.university, irrespective; of the place cif his birth. or residence.

The second consideration which has legitimately weighed with the courts in· diluting the principle of selection based on · merit is the claim of backwardness made on. behaif of any parti- cular region. .There have been cases where stud'ents residing in ·a backward region have been given preferential tr.eatment in admissions to .medical colleges and such preferential treatment has been upheld on the ground that though.·apparently discriminatory against others, it is-intended to correct the imbalance or handicap from which the .students from the backward region are suffering· : ans! thus bring about real equality in the larger sense. Such preferential treatment for .those residing in the backward region is designed to produce . equal opportunity on a· broader basis by r providing to neglected · geographical or human areas an opportu' G nity to .rise which they would not have if no preferential 'i treatment is given to them and they are treated on th'e same basis as others for admissions to medical colleges, be·cause -then they would never be able to compete with others more advantageously placed. If creatively and imaginatively applied,- ·preferential H treatment based on residen¢e in a backward regfon can play a significa 1 t role in reducing uneven levels of development and such

918 SUPREM'B CouRT REPORTS [1984J 3 s.c.'R.

~RADEEP JAIN v. UNION (llhagwati, J.)