Supreme Court has reserved judgment on pleas challenging Telangana HC’s 4-year residency rule for medical admissions. CJI Gavai flagged concerns over exclusion of deserving students who briefly left the state.
New Delhi: On August 4, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on several petitions, including one filed by the Telangana government, which challenged a High Court order that had struck down the state’s domicile rule for medical college admissions.
The Telangana government had issued amended rules under the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, updated in 2024. These rules stated that only those students who had studied in Telangana for the last four years up to Class 12 would be eligible for medical and dental admissions under the state quota.
However, the Telangana High Court ruled that the state could not deny medical college admissions to permanent residents of Telangana just because they lived outside the state for some time. The High Court found this requirement unfair, especially for students who had genuine reasons to study outside the state.
A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments on Tuesday.
Appearing for the Telangana government, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi strongly defended the four-year continuous study rule.
While defending the state’s rule, Singhvi said that “a threshold becomes inevitable” once a domicile rule is framed.
He added that Telangana’s rule was based on a government order supported by a Presidential Order and further argued that
“only the state government, not courts, could define permanent residence.”
However, the bench raised practical issues related to the rule. CJI Gavai gave a real-life example and said:
“A Telangana judge is transferred to Bihar and his son studies in classes 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Bihar then the boy is disentitled from getting admissions in his home state.”
CJI Gavai also posed a question about students who briefly move out of Telangana for genuine reasons.
“Take a student born and raised in Telangana but moves away for just classes 10 and 11 and say, to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer from Telangana posted in Delhi, whose child studies outside the state for two years. Should such children be disqualified?”
Justice K Vinod Chandran also expressed concern and said,
“If a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study doesn’t. Isn’t that an anomaly?”
In response, Singhvi said that the term “permanent resident” was something that the High Court itself had created, and reiterated that “only the state has the authority to define” such terms.
The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the High Court’s order on September 20 last year. That order had said that students who are permanent residents or domiciled in Telangana cannot be denied admission benefits just because they stayed outside the state temporarily for education or residence.
Meanwhile, the Telangana government told the court that it had agreed to give a one-time exception to 135 students who had approached the High Court earlier. These students would be allowed admissions in medical and dental colleges in 2024, despite the new four-year rule.
In its appeal, the state argued that the High Court had wrongly interpreted Rule 3(a) of the amended rules. This rule clearly stated that students must study for four continuous years in Telangana before appearing for the qualifying exam to be eligible for medical admissions under the state quota.
The state said the High Court’s order went against its legislative powers and wrongly allowed students to claim eligibility even if they didn’t meet this four-year requirement. Telangana claimed that it has full legislative authority to decide rules related to domicile, permanent residence, and eligibility criteria for state-run educational institutions.
According to the Telangana government, the High Court’s judgment also forced the state to create fresh rules for admission, which would take a lot of time.
The state explained the detailed process that would follow, saying:
“After framing the rules students have to apply and collect the requisite certificates from authorities concerned. Each certificate submitted by the student needs to be verified by the Health University. Whereas the present rule prescribes that the students can produce their educational certificate without approaching any office or authority. If the judgement of the high court is implemented, it will result in a huge delay in the allotment of seats to MBBS and BDS students.”
During the hearing, CJI B R Gavai remarked that
“hard cases do not necessarily invalidate a law”,
but still raised concerns about how the rule might unfairly affect certain students. He noted that some students who left the state briefly for education, despite having spent most of their life in Telangana, could be disqualified under the new rule.
The court also discussed inconsistencies in how the rule operates. The bench pointed out that
“a student idle in the state for 4 years qualifies”, while “a student studying outside for 2 years becomes ineligible”.
These contradictions, the petitioners said, show how the rule could result in unfair treatment of genuinely meritorious students.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Questions Retired Judge’s Petition on Telangana PG Medical Admission Rules
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, defending the rule, argued that
“domicile thresholds are inevitable and justified by public policy”.
He explained that having a clear residency requirement is necessary to help the state implement its education policy effectively and to prioritise local students.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan submitted that the 2017 rules had already been amended.
He also highlighted that a full bench of the Telangana High Court had, in 2022, read down the “permanent resident” clause, which helped clarify the legal understanding of domicile in such cases.
Intervenors also raised objections, stating that students living near the state borders or those facing minor technical issues with documentation were being unfairly excluded due to the strict four-year requirement.
ALSO READ: [NEET-PG 2024] Supreme Court to Hear Case Today (Dec 03)
They argued that these technicalities were depriving eligible students of their right to seek admission in medical colleges.
After hearing all the arguments, the Supreme Court has now reserved its judgment. The final verdict is expected to have a significant impact not only on medical admissions in Telangana but also on how domicile rules are framed and interpreted by other states across India.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Medical College Admissions
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
