Answer

Domicile-based reservations in medical education have long been a tool for states to address local healthcare needs. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling in Dr. Tanvi Behl Case has reignited debates on equitable access and state autonomy. With rural India facing over 80% shortage of specialists (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare report), ensuring a balanced medical workforce remains a pressing challenge.

Recent Supreme Court Ruling on Domicile-Based Reservations

• Striking Down Reservations: The Supreme Court ruled in Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goyal (2025) that domicile-based reservations in postgraduate medical admissions violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
  For example: The ruling overturned policies of several states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, which reserved a percentage of PG medical seats for local students.
• Reference to Past Precedents: The Court relied on Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India (1984), which distinguished between undergraduate and postgraduate medical admissions, asserting that merit should prevail over domicile-based preferences.
  For example: In Pradeep Jain (1984), the Supreme Court struck down domicile-based quotas for MBBS admissions, citing national integration and meritocracy as key principles.
• Impact on State Autonomy: The judgment weakens the ability of States to retain medical graduates and ensure a continuous supply of specialists, disincentivizing State investment in government medical colleges.
• Reinforcement of Meritocracy: The ruling prioritizes merit-based admissions over regional considerations, arguing that medical education should focus on meritocracy over domicile.
  For example: Central institutions like AIIMS and JIPMER do not implement domicile-based quotas, allowing admissions based purely on NEET-PG scores.
• Disregard for Public Health Needs: The decision fails to consider the role of state-run medical colleges in public health governance, which aim to address local healthcare challenges by training specialists familiar with regional needs.
  For example: During COVID-19, States like Kerala leveraged locally trained specialists to manage ICU shortages efficiently, demonstrating the need for region-specific medical training policies.

Positive Implications for Equitable Access to Healthcare & State Autonomy

• Promotes National-Level Competition: By removing domicile-based restrictions, the ruling allows students from all regions to compete for seats in state-run medical colleges, ensuring opportunities for talented candidates regardless of residence.
• Encourages Mobility of Specialists: The ruling removes barriers that previously limited doctors to their home states, enabling a better distribution of specialists across the country, reducing regional disparities.
  For example: Doctors trained in Maharashtra can now practice in northeastern states, which face acute shortages of specialists, addressing healthcare gaps in underserved areas.
• Enhances Institutional Standards: By prioritizing merit over domicile, the judgment encourages States to improve their medical colleges to attract top talent, fostering healthy competition among institutions.
• Aligns with Centralized Healthcare Policies: The decision reinforces national-level medical workforce planning, ensuring a more uniform distribution of doctors, aligning Ayushman Bharat to improve healthcare access nationwide.
  

Negative Implications for Equitable Access to Healthcare & State Autonomy

• Weakens State Healthcare Planning: The ruling removes a crucial mechanism for States to retain doctors trained in their medical institutions, disrupting long-term workforce planning and weakening rural healthcare systems.
• Disincentivizes State Investment in Medical Education: If States cannot ensure locally trained specialists serve their communities, they may not prioritize funding for medical colleges, leading to declining infrastructure and faculty shortages.
• Increases Dependence on External Recruitment: Without domicile-based admissions, States must rely on external recruitment, which is costly, inefficient, and uncertain, especially in rural and tribal areas.
• Fails to Address Regional Health Disparities: The ruling ignores socio-economic and geographic imbalances in healthcare access, as doctors from wealthier urban backgrounds are less likely to serve in remote areas.

Way Ahead for Equitable Healthcare & State Autonomy

• Link PG Admissions with Mandatory Public Service: Instead of removing domicile quotas, the government should mandate post-PG service in public hospitals, ensuring trained doctors contribute to local healthcare needs.
• Strengthen Incentives for Rural Retention: States should provide financial incentives, better working conditions, and career progression opportunities for specialists willing to serve in underdeveloped areas.
• Allowing Hybrid Model in PG Admissions: A balanced policy could retain a percentage of seats for local candidates while allowing merit-based national competition, ensuring both state autonomy and fairness.
• Decentralized Policy Decision-Making: The judiciary should respect State autonomy in medical education policy, allowing region-specific solutions rather than one-size-fits-all national policies.
  

“Balancing Equity and Efficiency” must be the guiding principle in resolving the domicile-based reservation debate. A uniform yet flexible policy ensuring regional equity without compromising meritocracy is crucial. States should leverage public-private partnerships, digital health solutions, and targeted incentives to address doctor shortages. A National Medical Workforce Strategy can harmonize state autonomy with healthcare accessibility, ensuring long-term sustainability.

DOWNLOAD PDF