Doctors Protest SC Verdict on Domicile-Based Reservation

Medical professionals protest Supreme Court's ruling against domicile-based reservations in PG medical courses, citing concerns over state healthcare services.

The recent Supreme Court verdict declaring domicile-based reservations in postgraduate (PG) medical courses unconstitutional has sparked significant unrest among medical professionals nationwide. Doctors argue that this decision could adversely affect state healthcare systems and the distribution of medical practitioners across regions.

Supreme Court's Verdict on Domicile-Based Reservation

Ruling Details:

• On January 29, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that domicile-based reservations in PG medical courses violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
• The Court emphasized that while domicile reservations might be permissible in undergraduate courses, extending them to PG courses is unconstitutional.

Implications:

• The verdict mandates that admissions to PG medical courses be based solely on merit, as determined by national entrance examinations like NEET-PG.
• States can no longer allocate seats in PG medical programs based on candidates' state of residence.

Doctors' Response and Planned Protests

Concerns Raised:

• Medical professionals fear that abolishing domicile-based reservations will lead to an uneven distribution of specialists, with rural and underserved areas suffering the most.
• There is apprehension that states with fewer medical colleges might struggle to retain doctors, exacerbating existing healthcare disparities.

Protest Plans:

• Doctors' associations across the country have announced peaceful protests and strikes to voice their dissent against the ruling.
• They are advocating for a review of the decision, emphasizing the potential negative impact on state healthcare services.

State Governments' Reactions

Tamil Nadu's Stand:

• The Tamil Nadu government has expressed strong opposition to the verdict and plans to file a review petition, citing concerns over social justice and the state's rights.

Other States:

• Several other states are evaluating the ruling's implications and considering legal avenues to address their concerns.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate domicile-based reservations in PG medical courses has ignited a nationwide debate. While the intent is to uphold the constitutional right to equality, medical professionals and state governments are concerned about the ruling's potential impact on regional healthcare services. The coming weeks are likely to witness intensified discussions and actions as stakeholders seek a balanced resolution.