The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its judgment on a batch of pleas, including one filed by the Telangana government, challenging a High Court order that invalidated the state’s controversial four-year domicile requirement for admissions to medical and dental colleges under the state quota.
The contentious rule, part of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017 (amended in 2024), restricts state quota eligibility to students who have studied in Telangana continuously for the four years preceding Class 12. The Telangana High Court had struck down the rule, holding that permanent residents of the state cannot be denied admission benefits merely because they temporarily lived or studied outside the state.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Telangana government, defended the rule before a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. Singhvi argued that the state’s domicile criteria were rooted in a government order backed by a Presidential Order and contended that only the state had the authority to define the term “permanent resident.”
“A threshold becomes inevitable once a domicile rule is established,” Singhvi said, underscoring the state’s legislative competence to determine eligibility criteria for medical admissions.
However, the bench raised significant concerns about the rule’s practical consequences. CJI Gavai gave the example of a Telangana-born student forced to move out due to a parent’s government transfer. “Should the child of a judge transferred to Bihar or an IAS officer posted in Delhi be disqualified from Telangana’s state quota, despite being born and raised in Telangana?” he questioned.
Justice Chandran also noted the seeming paradox of the rule, pointing out that a student remaining idle in Telangana for four years could qualify, while one who temporarily moved away for educational pursuits could be excluded.
The state government had earlier agreed to make a one-time exception for 135 students who had petitioned the High Court and were affected by the rule, allowing them admission in 2024. However, it maintained in its Supreme Court appeal that the High Court had erred in interpreting Rule 3(a) of the admission rules, which mandates four consecutive years of study within the state before appearing for the qualifying exam.
The plea further warned that the High Court’s judgment could delay the entire admission process. “If the judgement is implemented, students will need to obtain new certificates and verification from authorities, causing delays in seat allotment for MBBS and BDS aspirants,” it said, adding that the existing rule only requires submission of educational certificates already in possession of students.
