The Supreme Court will clarify whether Telangana’s domicile quota for MBBS and BDS admissions applies to children of both State and Central government employees. The bench emphasized that the four-year study or residence rule remains valid under Article 371D.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today was asked to give clarity on whether Telangana’s local domicile rule for medical admissions applies equally to children of both state and central government employees. The matter came before a bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
The bench was informed that currently, the Telangana government is extending the benefit of local domicile only to children of state government employees.
On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court had already upheld the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which were amended in 2024.
These rules mandate that a student must study for at least four consecutive years in Telangana to qualify for the “local candidate” quota in MBBS and BDS admissions.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Telangana government against the High Court’s decision that had diluted this rule.
The High Court earlier said that permanent residents of the state should not be required to study or live in Telangana continuously for four years to qualify under the domicile quota.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed and set aside the High Court’s order.
The bench observed:
“There was no warrant for a reading down when the definition is clear, in consonance with the Presidential Order and similar rules having been upheld by this court as coming out from the binding precedents. We find no reason to take a different view with respect to the amended rule also; 15% having been conceded to the All India quota.”
The bench made it clear that the four-year residence or study requirement for availing domicile quota in Telangana’s medical colleges is valid.
ALSO READ: Gujarat Court Summons Abhisar Sharma & Raju Parulekar in Adani Group Defamation Case
It rejected the argument that the rule was unconstitutional or unfair. The judgment stated:
“We have to state that without a definition of what constitutes residence or at least without reference to a statute or rule prescribing the issuance of a residence certificate, the directions issued by the High Court would only result in an anomalous situation, making the reservation unworkable and open to a series of litigation.”
The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that under the 2017 Rules, domicile quota benefits are available to students whose parents were taken out of Telangana due to employment in defence services or public sector undertakings.
It was further recorded that, in the previous academic year, as a concession, some students who did not strictly fall within the definition were still admitted to address grievances. On this point, the bench clarified:
“The admissions so made would not be disturbed.”
The Telangana government had earlier challenged the High Court’s view, which had held that permanent residents of the state could not be denied medical admission benefits simply because they lived outside Telangana for some time.
The state argued that its domicile rules are backed by a Presidential Order under Article 371D of the Constitution, which grants Telangana special power to give preference to local candidates in education and employment.
The state also contended that the High Court wrongly expanded the scope of Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules (as amended in 2024) to allow more candidates to qualify.
Telangana maintained that only students who studied the last four years up to Class 12 in the state are entitled to the benefit of local quota in MBBS and BDS admissions.
It stressed that any expansion of the definition by courts would dilute Article 371D and defeat its very purpose.
By allowing the appeal filed by the Telangana government, the Supreme Court has now firmly upheld the state’s right to frame admission eligibility rules for its medical and dental colleges.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Waqf Amendment Bill
