Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2025-01-29 partly_allowed

DR. TANVI BEHL vs SHREY GOEL & ORS

Bench: 3 — Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, S.V.N. Bhatti

In Brief

The Supreme Court held that residence-based reservation in Post-Graduate Medical Courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution and is impermissible. While such reservation may be reasonable for undergraduate medical education (MBBS) given the State's investment in infrastructure, it cannot apply to specialist post-graduate studies where merit and excellence are essential. The Indian Constitution recognizes only one domicile—the Domicile of India—and all citizens have equal rights to education nationwide regardless of State residence. The Court upheld institutional preference reservations (for MBBS graduates of the same college) as reasonable, but invalidated the residence-based 'UT Chandigarh Pool' criteria. Prospectively, State Quota seats must be filled strictly by merit in national NEET examinations, though admissions already granted to continuing students remain unaffected.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Medical Education Reservation and Affirmative Action Constitutional Law Article 14 - Equality Article 15 - Non-discrimination Domicile Residency Requirements Administrative Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login