Introduction
Domicile reservation is a policy that reserves certain positions or quotas in educational institutions, government jobs, and other sectors for residents of a particular state or region. In India, many States have implemented domicile reservation policies to protect the rights and opportunities of their residents. However, there has been discussion and disagreement surrounding the constitutionality under the Constitution of India regarding domicile reservation in India. Many contend that it is necessary to advance the interests of local communities and guarantee fair representation, while some claim it violates the equality principle and discriminates against non-residents.
Constitutionality
of Domicile Reservation
Each and every person has the right to equality before the
law and equal protection of laws, as stated in Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination
based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. According to Article
16(2) of the Constitution, no citizen shall be subjected to discrimination in
sectors of public employment based on place of birth or residence. Despite these
restrictions, many Indian states have adopted domicile reservation laws in a
variety of fields, including healthcare, government employment, and education.
For instance, the state of Maharashtra reserves 85% of the places at its
government medical colleges for residents. The majority of Class III and Class
IV government posts in the state of Jharkhand are similarly restricted for
locals.
Critics
claim that these measures promote regionalism and parochialism and contradict
the equality principle. They contend that residence reservation laws impose
hurdles on people who do not reside in a specific state or region and that all
Indian citizens should have equal access to opportunities. Additionally, they
contend that such measures encourage a limited form of regionalism and go
against the spirit of national integration.
Supporters
of domicile reservation laws counter that they are essential to safeguard local
communities’ interests and guarantee that they have access to opportunities
inside their own states. Without such regulations, they contend, people who
live in particular states or regions could be at a disadvantage to people who
live in other places, who might have more access to resources and
opportunities. Supporters also contend that domicile reservation policies are
consistent with the federalism principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
They contend that each state has the right to create its own policies in
accordance with the requirements and ambitions of its citizens.
Domicile
Reservation in Public Employment & Educational Institutions
Shivraj Singh Chauhan, the chief
minister of Madhya Pradesh, declared in 2020 that only “children of the
state” will receive any government employment. His counterparts in
Telangana and Haryana have also endorsed similar policies in their states that
prioritise residents over non-residents. To give locals priority, several
states have used indirect criteria like language examinations.
The Supreme Court created a
distinction between “place of birth” and “residence” in DP
Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1],
holding that the terms “domicile” and “place of birth” are
not interchangeable. It observed that the “residence” did not exist
in Article 15 of Indian Constitution though found in Article 16(2).
Therefore, a state’s preference for its “student” residents would not
contravene Articles 14 or 15 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has
reaffirmed this in numerous additional judgements, most notably State of
UP v. Pradeep Tandon[2]
and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India[3].
The Supreme Court’s decisions imply that under the
Constitution the government is permitted to give preference to local residents
at educational institutions so long as it doesn’t apply the same standard to
public employment, which Article 16(2) expressly forbids. Additionally, Article
16(3) only permits the Parliament, not state legislatures, to use residence as
a factor in public employment reservations. Thus, the notifications from the
governments of Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Telangana, which promise
reservations to the “sons of the soil,” are plainly in violation of
Art. 16(2) and Art. 16(3) of the Constitution.
In Union of India v. Dr.
Pradeep Jain[4]:
In this case, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Uttar Pradesh
government policy that allocated 50% of seats in postgraduate medical
programmes to physicians who earned their MBBS from state-run medical schools.
The policy, according to the court, discriminated against doctors who received
their MBBS from other states and violated the right to equality granted by the
Indian Constitution. In the matter of Pradeep Jain, Justice Bhagwati stated
this explicitly and made the following observations:
“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…. To regard him as an outsider would be to deny him his constitutional rights and to derecognise the essential unity and integrity of the country by treating it as if it were a mere conglomeration of independent states……….it is strongly urged upon the State Government to exercise this wrong use of the expression “domicile” from the rules regulating admissions to their educational institutions and particularly medical colleges and to desist from introducing and maintaining domiciliary requirement as a condition of eligibility for such admissions.”
In State of Punjab v. Ajaib
Singh[5],
the Supreme Court held that a classification might be legitimately created on
the basis of geography and that such a classification would be fair if the
issue was principally of state interest. Here, the state’s concerns include
public health, crime, and assistance for the unemployed.
Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra[6]: The Maharashtra government’s policy of reserving all seats
in Class III and Class IV categories for local citizens was affirmed by the
Supreme Court in this case. The strategy, according to the court, was designed
to safeguard the interests of local communities and was consistent with the
federalism ideals established in the Indian Constitution.
In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra[7]: The Maharashtra government’s policy of reserving 85% of
seats in government medical colleges for students who were residents of the
state was affirmed by the Supreme Court in this case. The court determined that
the policy was consistent with the state’s authority to enact laws for the
welfare of its residents and did not contravene the right to equality granted
by the Indian Constitution.
In another case, State of Tamil Nadu v.
K. Shyam Sunder[8],
a law granting 85% state quota seats in medical colleges to students who had
attended government schools in the state for at least five years was upheld by
the Supreme Court as constitutional. Even though this case didn’t deal with
domicile reservations specifically, it did deal with a comparable kind of
reservation based on the location of education.
These instances serve as an example of how the
law concerning the constitutionality of domicile reservation in India is
complex and constantly changing. Although the courts have generally upheld the
legality of such policies, they have also invalidated those that were found to
violate the equality rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, domicile reservation constitutionality in India remains a controversial issue. While some contend that it undermines the equality principle and encourages regionalism, others think it is essential to safeguard local communities’ interests and guarantee fair representation. In the end, the courts’ interpretation of the Indian Constitution and the federalism and equality entrenched in it will determine whether or not these policies are legitimate. The Constitution’s definition of equality is a dynamic concept that evolves with time. It is crucial to consider the social injustices that already exist in order to attain true equality, as well as to apply affirmative action by providing the socially and economically disadvantaged with opportunities. The fundamental characteristic of Indian culture and the guiding principle of Indian identity is unity in diversity. It is also a key element of our Constitution to work towards unification while upholding the unique characteristics of the many classes and types of people who are residents of the several states that make up the Indian Nation. All forms of discrimination, however, do not necessarily violate the constitutional principle of equality and threaten India’s unity. From the standpoint of unemployed people and the concerned state, domicile-based reservation promotes equality since it has the capacity to lower crime rates, guarantee good public health, eradicate poverty, and uphold equality in society. The only challenge with domicile-based reservation is the extent of the reservation, which needs to be reasonable as per the needs and current state of the residents of that particular State.
Priyanka Singh has completed B.A. LLB. (HONS.) from Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal
Readers may submit his/her blog for publication. Click Here to submit your Manuscript.
[1] DP Joshi v.
State of Madhya Pradesh,1955 SCR (1)1215.
[2]
State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon, 1975 SCR (2) 761.
[3] Saurabh
Chaudri v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212.
[4] Union of India v. Dr. Pradeep Jain, 1984 SCR (3) 942.
[5] State of
Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, 1995 SCC (2) 486.
[6] Kumari
Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra, AIR 1995
SC 94.
[7] Dattaraj
Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590.
[8] State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder, Civil Appeal Nos. 6015-6027/2011.
Related
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
Introduction
Domicile reservation is a policy that reserves certain positions or quotas in educational institutions, government jobs, and other sectors for residents of a particular state or region. In India, many States have implemented domicile reservation policies to protect the rights and opportunities of their residents. However, there has been discussion and disagreement surrounding the constitutionality under the Constitution of India regarding domicile reservation in India. Many contend that it is necessary to advance the interests of local communities and guarantee fair representation, while some claim it violates the equality principle and discriminates against non-residents.
Constitutionality of Domicile Reservation
Each and every person has the right to equality before the law and equal protection of laws, as stated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. According to Article 16(2) of the Constitution, no citizen shall be subjected to discrimination in sectors of public employment based on place of birth or residence. Despite these restrictions, many Indian states have adopted domicile reservation laws in a variety of fields, including healthcare, government employment, and education. For instance, the state of Maharashtra reserves 85% of the places at its government medical colleges for residents. The majority of Class III and Class IV government posts in the state of Jharkhand are similarly restricted for locals.
Critics claim that these measures promote regionalism and parochialism and contradict the equality principle. They contend that residence reservation laws impose hurdles on people who do not reside in a specific state or region and that all Indian citizens should have equal access to opportunities. Additionally, they contend that such measures encourage a limited form of regionalism and go against the spirit of national integration.
Supporters of domicile reservation laws counter that they are essential to safeguard local communities’ interests and guarantee that they have access to opportunities inside their own states. Without such regulations, they contend, people who live in particular states or regions could be at a disadvantage to people who live in other places, who might have more access to resources and opportunities. Supporters also contend that domicile reservation policies are consistent with the federalism principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. They contend that each state has the right to create its own policies in accordance with the requirements and ambitions of its citizens.
Domicile Reservation in Public Employment & Educational Institutions
Shivraj Singh Chauhan, the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, declared in 2020 that only “children of the state” will receive any government employment. His counterparts in Telangana and Haryana have also endorsed similar policies in their states that prioritise residents over non-residents. To give locals priority, several states have used indirect criteria like language examinations.
The Supreme Court created a distinction between “place of birth” and “residence” in DP Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1], holding that the terms “domicile” and “place of birth” are not interchangeable. It observed that the “residence” did not exist in Article 15 of Indian Constitution though found in Article 16(2). Therefore, a state’s preference for its “student” residents would not contravene Articles 14 or 15 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this in numerous additional judgements, most notably State of UP v. Pradeep Tandon[2] and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India[3].
The Supreme Court’s decisions imply that under the Constitution the government is permitted to give preference to local residents at educational institutions so long as it doesn’t apply the same standard to public employment, which Article 16(2) expressly forbids. Additionally, Article 16(3) only permits the Parliament, not state legislatures, to use residence as a factor in public employment reservations. Thus, the notifications from the governments of Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Telangana, which promise reservations to the “sons of the soil,” are plainly in violation of Art. 16(2) and Art. 16(3) of the Constitution.
In Union of India v. Dr. Pradeep Jain[4]: In this case, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Uttar Pradesh government policy that allocated 50% of seats in postgraduate medical programmes to physicians who earned their MBBS from state-run medical schools. The policy, according to the court, discriminated against doctors who received their MBBS from other states and violated the right to equality granted by the Indian Constitution. In the matter of Pradeep Jain, Justice Bhagwati stated this explicitly and made the following observations:
In State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh[5], the Supreme Court held that a classification might be legitimately created on the basis of geography and that such a classification would be fair if the issue was principally of state interest. Here, the state’s concerns include public health, crime, and assistance for the unemployed.
Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra[6]: The Maharashtra government’s policy of reserving all seats in Class III and Class IV categories for local citizens was affirmed by the Supreme Court in this case. The strategy, according to the court, was designed to safeguard the interests of local communities and was consistent with the federalism ideals established in the Indian Constitution.
In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra[7]: The Maharashtra government’s policy of reserving 85% of seats in government medical colleges for students who were residents of the state was affirmed by the Supreme Court in this case. The court determined that the policy was consistent with the state’s authority to enact laws for the welfare of its residents and did not contravene the right to equality granted by the Indian Constitution.
In another case, State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder[8], a law granting 85% state quota seats in medical colleges to students who had attended government schools in the state for at least five years was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. Even though this case didn’t deal with domicile reservations specifically, it did deal with a comparable kind of reservation based on the location of education.
These instances serve as an example of how the law concerning the constitutionality of domicile reservation in India is complex and constantly changing. Although the courts have generally upheld the legality of such policies, they have also invalidated those that were found to violate the equality rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, domicile reservation constitutionality in India remains a controversial issue. While some contend that it undermines the equality principle and encourages regionalism, others think it is essential to safeguard local communities’ interests and guarantee fair representation. In the end, the courts’ interpretation of the Indian Constitution and the federalism and equality entrenched in it will determine whether or not these policies are legitimate. The Constitution’s definition of equality is a dynamic concept that evolves with time. It is crucial to consider the social injustices that already exist in order to attain true equality, as well as to apply affirmative action by providing the socially and economically disadvantaged with opportunities. The fundamental characteristic of Indian culture and the guiding principle of Indian identity is unity in diversity. It is also a key element of our Constitution to work towards unification while upholding the unique characteristics of the many classes and types of people who are residents of the several states that make up the Indian Nation. All forms of discrimination, however, do not necessarily violate the constitutional principle of equality and threaten India’s unity. From the standpoint of unemployed people and the concerned state, domicile-based reservation promotes equality since it has the capacity to lower crime rates, guarantee good public health, eradicate poverty, and uphold equality in society. The only challenge with domicile-based reservation is the extent of the reservation, which needs to be reasonable as per the needs and current state of the residents of that particular State.
Priyanka Singh has completed B.A. LLB. (HONS.) from Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access Jurisedge Recent Legal News Archives and our Jurisedge Blog for legal updates from around the globe.
For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal
Readers may submit his/her blog for publication. Click Here to submit your Manuscript.
[1] DP Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1955 SCR (1)1215.
[2] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon, 1975 SCR (2) 761.
[3] Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212.
[4] Union of India v. Dr. Pradeep Jain, 1984 SCR (3) 942.
[5] State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, 1995 SCC (2) 486.
[6] Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra, AIR 1995 SC 94.
[7] Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590.
[8] State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder, Civil Appeal Nos. 6015-6027/2011.
Share this:
Related
The Legality of Reservation in the Private Sector
– Arshnit Sandhu Reservation is a concept derived from the principle of equity. The Principle of Equity ensures the need for preferential treatment to vulnerable groups of people in society. read more…
Share this: