The Supreme Court on Monday (September 1) upheld Telangana’s domicile rules that require students to have studied in the state for four consecutive years before the qualifying examination to be treated as “local candidates” for MBBS and BDS seats.The bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran reversed the Telangana High Court’s judgments, which had previously held that a permanent resident may not be required to reside in the state to gain the benefit of the domicile quota in medical and dental admissions.“In the wake of the binding precedents, holding the field for three score and ten years; a lifetime, we are unable to accede to the claim of the students who did not fall under the definition that the rule is exclusionary, arbitrary and constitutionally invalid,” the SC’s judgment noted.This verdict closes a two-year legal battle between the students, the state government and the High Court, which had twice struck down the rule.What do the rules say?The legal framework governing eligibility for local candidate quotas in Telangana rests on the 2017 Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules.The heart of the dispute lies in the interpretation of Rule 3(a) and Rule 3(III)(B). These rules define a “local candidate” as someone who has either studied continuously in Telangana for four years before the commencement of the qualifying examination, i.e., grades 9th to 12th, or has resided in the state for four years before that examination. Under these Rules, 85% of medical seats under the Competent Authority Quota are reserved for candidates considered residents of the State, and 15% is reserved for the All India quota.This framework draws on Article 371D of the Constitution, which allows the state to make special provisions in education and employment for people from different regions of Andhra Pradesh. The Article was first applied to undivided Andhra Pradesh through a Presidential order in 1974, and was extended to Telangana after the state was carved out in 2014.What was the case about?Story continues below this adIn 2023, a group of students approached the court after they were denied local status despite being born and domiciled in Telangana. Many had spent years studying in the state but moved temporarily to other states for various reasons, such as parental transfers, better access to NEET coaching, or the pandemic. The petitioners said it was unfair to treat similar students differently, and that this went against Article 14 of the Constitution. One petitioner, for example, had studied in Hyderabad until Grade 10, but when her parents, both in the All India Services, were transferred to Chennai, she had to finish Grades 11 and 12 there. Despite being lifelong residents of Telangana, they were declared ineligible for the local quota.The HC held that the purpose of the 2017 Admission rules was to provide opportunities to students from the state, and it could not see a rational link between excluding a permanent resident and the stated object of promoting local access. The court therefore held that domicile, not continuous study, should be sufficient.Also Read | Delhi riots: Why UAPA accused, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, have been denied bailIn 2024, the state reintroduced the rule through a fresh government order, which again imposed a four-year requirement. This sparked another round of petitions, with students in identical situations returning to the court. In September 2024, the HC read down the rule a second time. It repeated that the rule was too rigid and discriminated against permanent residents who, for no fault of their own, had to study elsewhere.The state, however, saw things differently. It argued that the rule was not an arbitrary policy, but one rooted in Article 371D of the Constitution, which allows special provisions to ensure equitable opportunities in education for different regions of Andhra Pradesh, extended to Telangana after bifurcation. The four-year study requirement, the government said, was not just a technicality but a way to ensure genuine social and educational integration within the state.Story continues below this adIt also stressed that the rule protected the interests of students from families without the resources to pursue education in other states or abroad, who would otherwise face greater competition for seats.In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the four-year rule, drawing on precedents from Assam and Haryana. In Anand Madaan v. State of Haryana (1995), the Court had upheld Haryana’s policy that students must study 10th to 12th grades in the state to be considered local for admission purposes. Similarly, in Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam (2018), the SC upheld Assam’s reservation policy for students who studied from Grade 8 to 12 in the state. These precedents affirmed the principle that states can reasonably classify candidates for local quotas based on residence or study within the state.The Supreme Court also acknowledged the state’s proposal to include a proviso for children of government officers, who may not meet the strict four-year requirement due to parental transfers. This proviso allowed certain exceptions to domicile rules without undermining the objective of local reservations.The Court noted that without a clear definition of residence or statutory guidance on issuing residence certificates, the High Court’s directions would have created confusion, making reservation enforcement impractical and prone to litigation. The Court also highlighted that the rule protects students from less privileged backgrounds, who may not have the means to study outside the state or abroad. If students who had the resources to pursue coaching elsewhere were also allowed to claim local status, the Court said, it could dilute the opportunity meant for those who studied entirely within Telangana.Story continues below this adThe ruling also seeks to distinguish between undergraduate and postgraduate medical admissions. At the undergraduate level, where broad access to professional courses is the goal, domicile-based reservations are justified. At the postgraduate level, where the focus is on specialised training, the Court reiterated that such reservations are not appropriate. This is in line with the earlier Supreme Court decision in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India in 1984.