Supreme Court Ruling on Domicile Reservations
In Dr. Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goyal (2025), the Supreme Court struck down domicile-based reservations for post-graduate medical admissions.
The ruling claims such reservations violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The decision emphasizes meritocracy, but risks harming local healthcare planning by reducing State autonomy.
It centralizes control over medical education, potentially weakening State investments in medical colleges.
Domicile Quotas in State Health Planning
Domicile-based quotas help States retain medical specialists by linking education with local healthcare needs.
States invest heavily in medical education, expecting graduates to serve in the local healthcare system.
Removing quotas makes States rely on external recruitment, which is inefficient and unpredictable.
Domicile quotas ensure a stable supply of doctors familiar with the local healthcare landscape.
Impact on State Autonomy and Healthcare Investment
Striking down domicile quotas reduces the incentive for States to invest in medical colleges.
States may deprioritize medical education funding, worsening regional healthcare disparities.
States lose the ability to tailor medical education policies to their specific health needs.
Centralized control over admissions limits States' autonomy in health and education planning.
Meritocracy and Structural Inequities
The Court's focus on merit disregards regional and socio-economic disparities in the medical education system.
NEET-PG exam results show flaws in assessing merit through percentile-based cutoffs.
Domicile reservations align with broader societal goals by addressing healthcare access and regional disparities.
A more inclusive definition of merit is needed to account for public health priorities and equity.
COMMENTS