In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that every Indian citizen holds a singular domicile—the domicile of India—rejecting the notion of state or provincial domicile within the country’s legal framework. The Court made this declaration while striking down residence-based reservations in postgraduate medical admissions, deeming them unconstitutional.
The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, emphasized that the concept of domicile holds relevance only in nations with multiple legal systems, which is not the case in India. Referring to the 1984 Pradeep Jain v. Union of India judgment, the Court reiterated that states often misuse the term “domicile” when they actually mean permanent residence. However, in legal terms, domicile is a distinct concept used primarily to determine an individual’s personal law jurisdiction.
The ruling underscored that Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on residence, meaning states cannot impose residency-based criteria for reservations in public employment or education. Any such restrictions, if necessary, can only be legislated by Parliament under Article 16(3), ensuring uniformity across the nation.
The Court also referenced Constituent Assembly Debates, noting that India’s founding vision was to ensure that citizens have the freedom to live, work, and study anywhere in the country. The framers ultimately decided that residence should not be a basis for government job eligibility, reinforcing the principle of equal opportunity nationwide.
Summing up the verdict, the Court stated:
“We are all domiciled in the territory of India. Our shared identity as citizens grants us the right to reside, work, and seek education anywhere in the nation, free from artificial provincial barriers.”
This judgment reaffirms India’s commitment to unity and equal rights, reinforcing that opportunities should be based on merit, not regional exclusivity.