2003 (11) TMI 601 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity of reservation whether based on domicile or institution in the matter of admission into Post Graduate Courses in government run medical colleges?

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of reservation based on domicile or institutional preference for admission into Post Graduate Courses in government-run medical colleges.
2. Whether reservation on the basis of domicile is impermissible under Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether reservation by way of institutional preference is valid and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Whether the strict scrutiny test or intermediate scrutiny test should be applied to such reservations.
5. The appropriate percentage of seats to be reserved for institutional preference.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Reservation Based on Domicile or Institutional Preference:
The core question was the constitutional validity of reservation based on domicile or institutional preference in admissions to Post Graduate Courses in government-run medical colleges. The petitioners, residents of Delhi, who completed their MBBS outside Delhi under the 15% all-India quota, challenged the Delhi University's notification that reserved 75% of PG seats for Delhi University graduates, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.

2. Reservation on the Basis of Domicile:
The Court held that reservation on the basis of domicile is impermissible under Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination based on place of birth. The Court distinguished between "place of birth" and "domicile," concluding that they are not synonymous and that the Constitution does not envisage reservation based on domicile. The Court cited past judgments, including D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, which clarified that place of birth cannot be a basis for reservation.

3. Reservation by Way of Institutional Preference:
The Court examined whether institutional preference violates Article 14, which forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification. Institutional preference was upheld as a valid classification based on intelligible differentia and rational relation to the objective of providing local students with opportunities for higher education. The Court referred to past decisions, including Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, which supported institutional preference, and emphasized that such preference has been a long-standing practice.

4. Application of Strict Scrutiny Test:
The Court rejected the application of the strict scrutiny test or intermediate scrutiny test, which are used in the United States, stating that Indian courts do not apply these tests. Instead, the Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality of statutes and the burden on the petitioner to prove otherwise. The Court held that institutional preference does not warrant strict scrutiny as it is not an unreasonable classification.

5. Percentage of Seats for Institutional Preference:
The Court revisited the percentage of seats reserved for institutional preference. While Dr. Pradeep Jain's case allowed up to 50% reservation, Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case reduced it to 25%. Considering the changed circumstances and the need for balance, the Court reinstated the 50% reservation for institutional preference in public interest. The Court mandated a common entrance test for all students conducted by AIIMS or another competent body to ensure uniformity and fairness in admissions.

Conclusion:
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of institutional preference for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses, limited to 50% of the seats. It emphasized the need for a common entrance test and called for legislative action by the Parliament to address the broader issues of higher education and reservation policies. The judgment aimed to balance the interests of local students and the need for excellence in higher education.

← Previous Next →