The Tamil Nadu government has decided to file a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging its recent ruling on domicile-based reservations in postgraduate (PG) medical courses. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S V N Bhatti held that such reservations violate fundamental rights.
State Health and Family Welfare Minister Ma Subramanian reaffirmed Tamil Nadu’s commitment to its 69% reservation policy, emphasising its role in ensuring social justice.
Subramanian also highlighted concerns over the impact of the ruling on the 50% quota reserved for Tamil Nadu students in PG medical admissions. He mentioned that discussions with medical experts are underway and that the state will proceed with a review petition after thorough deliberations.
On January 29, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot grant domicile-based reservations for PG medical seats and clarified that state quota seats must be allotted based on merit in the NEET examination. The bench declared, “Residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Additionally, the court asserted that there is no concept of state domicile, stating, “We are all domiciles in the territory of India. There is nothing like a provincial or state domicile.”
While striking down domicile-based reservations for future PG medical admissions, the Supreme Court clarified that students who have already secured seats under this policy will not be affected. The ruling followed a challenge by students against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that deemed domicile-based reservations for PG medical courses unconstitutional.