Union Government Seeks States' Opinion on Implications of Supreme Court Order on Domicile Quota in PG Medical Courses

The Union government has sought opinions from States on the implications of a Supreme Court order that may abolish residence-based reservation or domicile quota for PG medical courses. Currently, 50% of PG medical seats are allocated under all-India quota, while the remaining 50% are allocated by States based on domicile quota and institutional reservation. The Tamil Nadu government has filed a review petition against the verdict, and Karnataka is discussing the issue with the Law Department and legal experts.

The Union government has initiated a dialogue with all States, including Karnataka, to gather opinions on the implications of a recent Supreme Court (SC) order that could potentially abolish the residence-based reservation or domicile quota for postgraduate (PG) medical courses [1]. The order, which mandates the conversion of all PG medical seats into all-India quota seats, has sparked concerns among States, particularly regarding the allocation of seats based on domicile quota.

Currently, 50% of PG medical seats are allocated by the National Testing Agency (NTA) under the all-India quota, while the remaining 50% are allocated by States based on domicile quota and institutional reservation. This system allows States to reserve seats for students who have studied MBBS in State medical institutions for at least five years [1].

The Tamil Nadu government has already filed a review petition against the SC verdict, while Karnataka is currently discussing the issue with the Law Department and legal experts. The Minister for Medical Education in Karnataka, Sharan Prakash Patil, has stated that the impact of the verdict on the State will be discussed with the Advocate General and conveyed to the Union government [1].

One of the significant concerns is the impact on the Kalyana Karnataka region, where 70% of government quota PG medical seats are reserved for local students under Article 371(j) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's order could potentially affect these reserved seats, although Mr. Patil has noted that the Constitutional guarantee for this reservation will not be impacted [1].

The case heard by the SC was an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's finding that the reservation of 64 PG seats at a government medical college in Chandigarh was constitutionally invalid and a violation of the right to equality [1].

Separately, the Tamil Nadu government has filed a petition before the Supreme Court against the Government of India for allegedly withholding funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. The Tamil Nadu government has sought the release of more than 2000 crores and has accused the Central government of trying to push Hindi through the National Education Policy, 2020 [2].

The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL seeking implementation of the three-language formula proposed by the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. The top court stated that it cannot directly compel a state to adopt the policy but may intervene if a state's action or inaction violates any fundamental rights [2].

References:
[1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/union-govt-seeks-opinion-of-states-on-implications-of-sc-order-on-domicile-quota-in-pg-medical-courses/article69597054.ece
[2] https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/nep-row-tamil-nadu-govt-moves-sc-against-centre-for-withholding-funds-125052100332_1.html