Supreme Court Upholds Telangana Domicile Rule Requiring Four-Year Continuous Study in State | Limited Relaxation Granted for Children of Government, Defence and PSU Employees
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the definition of "local candidate" framed under the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, as amended in 2024, is valid and in consonance with the Presidential Order issued under Article 371D of the Constitution. The Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s decisions which had expanded the definition of local candidates and directed that admissions be governed strictly under the statutory framework as modified by the State. The Court further directed that past admissions made under interim orders would not be disturbed, while also recording a new proviso introduced by the State to mitigate hardship for children of employees compelled to study outside Telangana.
The case arose from challenges mounted against the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, and the subsequent amendment introduced through G.O. Ms. No. 33 dated 19 July 2024. Both sets of rules prescribed criteria for determining eligibility under the "Competent Authority Quota" reserved for local candidates, in accordance with Article 371D of the Constitution and the Presidential Order of 1974.
The controversy originated when a batch of writ petitions was filed before the Telangana High Court, questioning the restrictive nature of the definition of "local candidate." The petitioners, being student aspirants, argued that the rules failed to account for life circumstances such as transfers of parents, employment exigencies, and opportunities for education outside the State, which resulted in disqualification despite their roots in Telangana.
The State, represented through its Advocate General and senior counsel, countered by asserting that the definition of local candidates was designed to ensure that students genuinely integrated with the State’s educational and social fabric were granted preference. According to the State, the objective behind Article 371D and the Presidential Order was to provide equitable opportunities to candidates who had resided and studied within Telangana and who were more likely to serve the State population as medical practitioners upon qualification.
The first judgment of the Telangana High Court, delivered on 29 August 2023, struck down aspects of the 2017 Rules, expanding the definition of "local candidate" to include those producing residence certificates issued by competent authorities. A subsequent decision dated 5 September 2024 read down the amended Rule 3 introduced in 2024, holding that candidates having permanent residence or domicile in Telangana should also be treated as local candidates.
The State of Telangana, along with universities, appealed both decisions before the Supreme Court. The appeals also covered writ petitions directly filed before the Supreme Court by affected students.
The matter required the Court to analyze the statutory basis of the 2017 Rules, the 2024 amendments, and their connection with Article 371D and the Presidential Order of 1974. Detailed arguments were advanced by senior counsel on both sides. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the State and University authorities, while senior counsel including Mr. P. B. Suresh, Mr. Raghenth Basant, and Mr. Prakash Deu Naik, along with other advocates, represented the student-aspirants.
The Court examined the historical background of preferential admissions in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. It traced the genesis of the Presidential Order of 1974, which divided the erstwhile State into three local areas and prescribed conditions of study and residence to determine local status. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, further extended the benefit of Article 371D for ten years post-bifurcation.
The petitioners’ central grievance was that the rules failed to accommodate candidates who had genuine ties to Telangana but pursued education outside due to circumstances beyond their control. The State contended that widening the definition on subjective judicial grounds would frustrate the very object of Article 371D, namely ensuring equitable opportunities for students who pursued their education within the State.
Two questions became pivotal: whether the 2017 Rules were validly framed under the Admission Act of 1983 read with Article 371D, and whether the High Court could expand or read down statutory definitions on grounds of hardship or arbitrariness.
The Court observed: “Whether the wisdom of the legislature in defining a ‘local candidate’ entitled to apply under the ‘Competent Authority Seats/Quota’, by a subordinate legislation, in consonance with a Presidential Order issued under Article 371D of the Constitution of India, can be interfered with and expanded by the High Court under Article 226, is the question arising in these batch of appeals.”
It stated: “The true test being not the claim of nativity by descent, but by their residence and their continued education within the State, culminating with the appearance in the qualifying examination within the State, establishing the real bonding and true integration into the local environment.”
The Bench recorded: “We are unable to uphold the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 of the High Court of Telangana.”
On the amendment, the Court noted: “There was no warrant for a reading down when the definition is clear, in consonance with the Presidential Order and similar rules having been upheld by this Court as coming out from the binding precedents.”
The Court also remarked: “The said proviso should allay and mitigate the grievances of those who claim that they were taken out of the State by compulsion of the movement of their parents outside the State by reason of employment.”
The Supreme Court directed that both judgments of the Telangana High Court dated 29 August 2023 and 5 September 2024 stand set aside. It ordered that the 2017 Rules, as amended in 2024, remain valid and operative in determining eligibility under the Competent Authority Quota.
The Court upheld the newly proposed proviso to Rule 3, which provides exceptions for children of Telangana government employees, All India Services officers borne on the Telangana cadre, defence and paramilitary personnel with Telangana nativity, and employees of State instrumentalities compelled to serve outside Telangana. Such candidates, though studying outside the State, would remain eligible subject to certification by competent authorities.
The Court directed that admissions already granted under interim orders, where students benefited from the expanded High Court definitions, shall not be disturbed. However, for future academic years, admissions shall strictly conform to the 2017 Rules as amended, along with the newly incorporated proviso.
The Court further dismissed the writ petitions filed by the student-aspirants before the Supreme Court, affirming the State’s legislative authority under Article 371D and the Presidential Order framework. Pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel; Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Counsel; Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate General for the State of Telangana.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. B. Suresh, Senior Counsel; Mr. Raghenth Basant, Senior Counsel; Mr. Prakash Deu Naik, Senior Counsel; Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Advocate; Mr. S. Sriram, Senior Counsel
Case Title: The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1058
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 21536-21588 of 2024 & connected matters
Bench: Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
