My Lord, Domicile/Residence-Based Reservation in Admission to PG Medical Courses within State Quota is Constitutionally Valid?
In Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, [Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019] SC observed that, in Saurabh Chaudri, (2013) 11 SCC 146 the answer was affirmative; that, Saurabh Chaudri in Paragraph 31 referred to State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon, (1975) 1 SCC 267; that, it is difficult to conclude that domicile/residence-based reservation/preference is a concept totally overthrown and jettisoned; that, a blanket prohibition on domicile/residence-based reservation may not be workable; that, the question requires a Larger Bench.
“A division between the population of our country on the ground of poverty that the people in the urban areas are not poor and that the people in the rural areas are poor is neither supported by facts nor by a division between the urban people on the one hand and the rural people on the other that the rural people are a socially and educationally backward class.
Some people in the rural areas may be educationally backward, some may be socially backward, there may be few who are both socially and educationally backward, but it cannot be said that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and educationally backward.
80% of the population in the State of Uttar Pradesh in rural areas cannot be said to be a homogeneous class by itself. They are not of the same kind. Their occupation is different. Their standards are different. Their lives are different. Population cannot be a class by itself. Rural element does not make it a class. To suggest that the rural areas are socially and educationally backward is to have reservation for the majority of the State.”
– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray, State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon, (1975) 1 SCC 267.