Judgments

DR. PRADEEP JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs Union of India (1984) SCR (3) 942  held that there is only one domicile under Constitution of India i.e. domicile in India.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Several Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging residential qualifications and institutional preferences in admission to Medical Colleges in several States. The Supreme Court noticed that it was consistent and uniform practice in almost all states to provide for such residential qualification and institutional preference. Notices were issues to several states and matter was heard by the Supreme Court.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court observed that Preamble emphasizes that the people who have given themselves to this glorious document are the people of India. Article 1 declares that India shall be a Union of States, it is as yet One Nation with One Citizenship. Articles 14 and Article 15 are intended to strike against discrimination and arbitrariness against state action, whether legislative or administrative. Article 19 (1) again recognizes the essential unity and integrity of the nation and reinforces the concept of one nation by providing in clauses (d) and (e) that every citizen shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.  Article 301 declares that subject to other provisions of Part XIII, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout territory of India shall be free. There are situations envisaged in certain   Articles of the Constitution such as Article 353 and 356 where the executive power of State forming part of Union is exercisable by the Central Government or subject to the direction of the Central Government.

The Supreme Court observed that entire country is taken as one nation with one citizenship. Every effort of the Constitution makers is directed towards emphasizing, maintaining and preserving the unity and integrity of the nation. Now if India is one nation and there is only one, citizenship, namely citizenship of India and every citizen has  a right to move freely throughout the territory of India  and  to reside and settle in any part of India, irrespective of the place where he is born or the language which he speaks or the religion which he professes and he is guaranteed freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India and is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the law with other citizens in every part of territory of India, it is difficult to see how a citizen having his permanent home in Tamil Nadu or speaking Tamil Language can be regarded as an outsider in Uttar Pradesh or a citizen having his permanent house in Maharashtra or /speaking Marathi Language regarded as outsider in Karnataka. He must be held entitled to the same rights as a citizen having his permanent home in Uttar Pradesh or Karnataka, as the case may be. To regard him as an outsider would be to deny him his constitutional rights and to derecognize the essential unity and integrity of the country by treating it as if were a mere conglomeration of independent states.

The Supreme Court observed that Article 15 bars discrimination on grounds not only of religion, race, caste, or sex but also of place of birth, Article 16 (2) goes further and provides that no citizen shall on grounds only of religion, race, caste or sex but also of place of birth. Article 16 (2) goes further and provides that no citizen shall on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in State Employment.  Residential requirement would be unconstitutional as a condition of eligibility for employment or appointment to an office under the State.

The Supreme Court observed that Article 16 (3) provides an exception to this rule by laying down that Parliament may make a law prescribing in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of or any local or other authority, in a state or union territory, any requirement as to residence within that state or union territory prior to such employment or appointment. Parliament alone is given the right to enact an exception to the ban on discrimination based on residence and that too only with respect to position within the employment of a State Government.  Despite the same Several State Governments were following policies of localism.

The Supreme Court noted that at present there are no Parliamentary enactment permitting preferential policies based on residence requirement except in the case of Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Himachal Pradesh where the Central Government has been given the right to issue directions setting residence requirements in the subordinate services. Yet in face of Article 16 (2), some of States are following sons of soil policies giving preference to domicile or residence requirements.

The Supreme Court noted that as far as admission to educational institutions are concerned, Article 16 (2) has no application. Any requirement of  “residence” for admission in educational institutions can not be challenged on ground of “Place of birth” under Article 15 or Article 16 (2) as place of birth and place of residence are two distinct concepts. Such requirements can only be tested on anvil of Article 14.

The Supreme Court noted that in several states there are domicile requirements for admission in Medical Colleges.

The Supreme Court observed that domicile is basically a legal concept for the purpose of determining what is the personal law applicable to an individual and even if an individual has no permanent home, he is invested with a domicile by law. There are two main classes of domicile – domicile of origin that is conferred by operation of law to each person at birth, that is the domicile of his father or his mother and domicile of choice which every person of full age is free to acquire in substitution for what which he presently possesses.

The Supreme Court observed that Constitution of India recognizes only one domicile i.e. domicile in India. India is not a federal state in traditional sense of the term. It has only one citizenship i.e citizenship of India. It has only one single legal unified system which extends throughout the territory of India. The concept of “domicile” has no relevance to the applicability of municipal laws whether made by the Union or by the States.

It was contended before the Supreme Court that State Governments prescribing requirement of domicile  for admission to medical colleges situated within their territories is used not in its technical sense but in a popular sense as meaning residence and is intended to convey the idea of intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. The Supreme Court also interpreted word “domicile” used in rules regulating admissions to medical colleges framed by some of the States in the same loose sense of permanent residence and not in the technical sense in which it is used in private international law.  The Supreme Court urged State Governments to stop wrong use of word “domicile” in respect of admission to medical colleges.

The Supreme Court condemned wholesale reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of “domicile” or residence requirements within the state or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed qualifying examination held by the University or the State excluding all students not satisfying the requirements, regardless of merit. Such wholesale reservation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court was of the opinion that reservation on the basis of residence should not be more than 70% of total open seats.  

The Supreme Court was also of the view that so far as admission to postgraduate courses, such as , M.S. , M.D. and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirements within the State or on institutional preference. But having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, the Supreme Court directed that residence requirements within state should not be a ground for reservation in admissions to Post Graduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances be reserved on the basis of institutional preference. Even reservation on such institutional preference should not be more than 50%.  But even in regard to admission to the post-graduate courses, so far as super specialties such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are concerned, there should not be any reservation even on the basis of institutional preference.  

__________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *