Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Telangana Domicile Norms for Medical Admissions

Supreme Court under CJI B. R. Gavai reserves judgment on petitions challenging Telangana’s relaxed domicile rules for medical college admissions, weighing fairness in threshold eligibility.

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in petitions challenging the Telangana High Court’s relaxed domicile rules for medical college admissions. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha evaluated arguments filed on behalf of the state and affected aspirants.

Chief Justice Gavai probed complex scenarios to assess whether the four-year residency requirement was arbitrary in real-world contexts. “Consider a student raised in Telangana who left briefly for Classes 10 and 11 for coaching in Kota. Should such a temporary move disqualify them?” he asked.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, defending the Telangana government, countered:“Any domicile threshold inevitably invites arbitrariness—hence our limit of four consecutive years,” as reported by Bar & Bench.

Singhvi also clarified that Telugu-speaking expats would qualify under the NRI quota and not under domicile rules.

Justice Chandran raised concerns about inconsistencies: “A student idle in Telangana for four years qualifies for domicile, yet one who leaves the state for credible reasons is excluded. Does policy justice serve the system?”

Singhvi maintained that domicile recognition is subject to state authority, and the High Court’s creation of a “permanent resident” category was constitutionally impermissible.

Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan traced the evolution of domicile rules, pointing out that the 2017 amendments were followed by a 2022 full-bench verdict that upheld the Presidential Order while modifying “permanent residence” criteria.

CJI queried whether pre‑2024 norms envisaged exclusion for students studying outside the state, to which Sankaranarayanan noted the in‑state Class 12 mandate for domicile eligibility in past governance frameworks.

One intervenor, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, narrated how living just five km outside Telangana rendered them ineligible—despite having strong linguistic and cultural ties to the state.

The Apex Court reserved its verdict, which could set a significant precedent regarding state-level reservation policy versus constitutional equality mandates.