Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Telangana's Domicile Norms for NEET Admissions

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a crucial case challenging Telangana's domicile policy for NEET admissions. Learn about the 'four-year study rule,' the arguments presented, and the potential impact on thousands of MBBS and BDS aspirants.

In a case with far-reaching implications for thousands of medical aspirants in Telangana, the Supreme Court of India has reserved its verdict on the state's controversial domicile policy for MBBS and BDS admissions. A bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai heard extensive arguments from both sides before concluding the hearing on August 5, 2025. The final ruling is expected soon, and it will determine the fate of many students seeking to secure one of the 85% state quota seats.

The legal battle stems from a challenge by the Telangana government against a High Court ruling that had struck down the state's stringent "four-year continuous study" rule. According to the state's amended rules, a candidate is considered "local" and eligible for the 85% state quota if they have studied in an educational institution in Telangana for at least four consecutive years, including the year they appeared for the qualifying exam.

The Core of the Dispute

The High Court had previously ruled that this four-year study rule was discriminatory and not applicable to permanent residents of the state. It argued that a student who is a permanent resident of Telangana should not be denied admission simply because they pursued a part of their education outside the state, such as for coaching in places like Kota or for a parent's temporary transfer.

During the Supreme Court hearing, the Chief Justice of India echoed these concerns. He raised a poignant question, highlighting the "anomaly" in the rule: "If a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study doesn't. Isn't that an anomaly?" This line of questioning underscores the Court's focus on whether the rule is a fair and equitable means of defining "local" status.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Telangana government, defended the rule. He argued that a "domicile threshold is inevitable" and necessary to implement the state's reservation policies and protect the interests of genuine local residents. He also asserted that the state, not the courts, has the legislative authority to define such terms. The state government's plea also highlighted that a strict interpretation of the High Court's ruling would create significant delays in the counselling process.

What's at Stake for Aspirants

The Supreme Court's ruling will have a direct and immediate impact on the ongoing medical admissions process. The 85% of seats reserved for local candidates constitute the vast majority of seats in state government and private medical colleges.

• If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court's order: Students who are permanent residents of Telangana but have studied outside the state for a part of their schooling would become eligible for the 85% local quota seats. This would significantly increase the competition for these seats.
• If the Supreme Court sides with the state government: The current "four-year continuous study" rule would be upheld. This would mean that only a very specific group of candidates would be eligible for the local quota, potentially making it more difficult for students who have genuine ties to the state but do not meet the strict study criteria.

The ongoing counselling process has been proceeding with the assumption that the state's rules are in effect, but the final judgment from the Supreme Court could mandate an immediate change.

Advice for Students

Given the uncertainty, students must remain vigilant and closely follow the official notifications from the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS). The university has previously stated that the admission process will follow the directions of the Supreme Court, once the final verdict is delivered.

Aspirants are advised to prepare their documents and stay informed. The outcome of this case is not just about a technical rule; it is about the fundamental rights of a student to pursue education in their home state, and it sets a precedent for how domicile and reservation policies are interpreted across the country.