SC reserves verdict on Telangana's domicile rule for medical admissions
The state government through the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, entitled only those students, who have studied for last four years up to Class 12 in the state, to admissions in the medical and dental colleges under the state quota.
The Telangana High Court held that the state's permanent residents cannot be denied benefits of admissions in the medical colleges only because they lived outside the state for sometime.
On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments from both sides, including the Telangana government's counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi.
Defending the state's four-year domicile criterion, Singhvi said once a domicile rule is established, 'a threshold becomes inevitable".
He said Telangana relied on a government order backed by a presidential order and, moreover, only the state government, not courts, could define "permanent residence".
The CJI referred to the practical consequences of the rule, illustrating if "a Telangana judge is transferred to Bihar and his son studies in classes 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Bihar then the boy is disentitled from getting admissions in his home state".
'Take a student born and raised in Telangana but moves away for just classes 10 and 11 and say, to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer from Telangana posted in Delhi, whose child studies outside the state for two years. Should such children be disqualified?' the CJI asked.
Justice Chandran weighed in, '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?"
Singhvi said the high court created the term "permanent resident," which only the state has the authority to define.
The top court on September 20 last year stayed the high court order directing permanent residents or those domiciled in the state couldn't be denied the benefit of admission in the medical colleges only because they remained outside Telangana for sometime for their studies or residence.
The state government, however, agreed to grant a one-time exception to 135 students, who had moved the high court, in admissions in the medical and dental colleges in 2024.
The state's appeal argued that the high court erroneously held Rule 3 of the amended Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, to be interpreted to mean the respondents were eligible to admission in the medical colleges in Telangana.
The rule mandated four consecutive years of study in the state for students seeking admission in Telangana medical colleges before qualifying the exam.
The state's plea argued such an order by the high court overlooked the fact that Telangana possesses the legislative competence to determine various requirements, including domicile, permanent resident status, etc.
The high court's judgement, it said, mandates the state to prepare new rules for admission, which was a time-intensive process.
"After framing the rules students have to apply and collect the requisite certificates from authorities concerned. Each certificate submitted by the student needs to be verified by the Health University. Whereas the present rule prescribes that the students can produce their educational certificate without approaching any office or authority. If the judgement of the high court is implemented, it will result in a huge delay in the allotment of seats to MBBS and BDS students," the plea added.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
28 minutes ago
- News18
Bihar voters will show mirror to Rahul Gandhi: Giriraj
Last Updated: New Delhi, Aug 5 (PTI) Bihar voters will show mirror to 'poster boy of Pakikstan' Rahul Gandhi in the coming elections for spreading lies about the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state, Union Minister Giriraj Singh said on Tuesday. 'The SIR is taking place as part of an electoral process yet Rahul Gandhi and Tejaswi Yadav jhooth ki kheti karte hain (they cultivate lies)," he told reporters on the sidelines of inauguration of an event organised by the Ministry of Textiles, in collaboration with the National Handloom Development Corporation (NHDC). The minister said if RJD leader Tejaswi Yadav possesses two voter cards, he should die of shame (usse toh chullu bhar paani mein doob ke mar jana chahiye). Singh also lashed out on Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi saying he believes in US President Donald Trump and likes what Pakistan says, but does not agree with the Supreme Court. He referred to recent observations by the Supreme Court against Rahul Gandhi in relation to his remarks on Indian army. 'He (Gandhi) has become the poster boy of Pakistan. He is going to Bihar from the 9th to the 14th. The people of Bihar will show them a mirror in the elections," said Singh, who is MP from Begusarai Lok Sabha constituency in Bihar. Referring to the over 35 lakh weavers associated with handlooms, the minister said in the near future their designs will be linked to blockchain technology so that the designs do not get stolen by any foreign company again. 'I don't want to take any names, foreign companies are stealing our designs and projecting as their own. India does not need anyone else's design," Singh told reporters. PTI RSN HVA view comments First Published: August 05, 2025, 21:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
33 minutes ago
- India Today
Lord Krishna was first mediator...: Top court raps UP Govt in Banke Bihari Temple case
During the ongoing hearing in the Banke Bihari Temple case on Monday, the Supreme Court remarked that Lord Krishna was also a mediator. The top court's observation came while it was contemplating an interim committee to look after the management of the iconic Shri Banke Bihari temple at Vrindavan, in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh.'When you talk about mediation, he was the first mediator available. So we also try to mediate,' Justice Surya Kant is an area of extraordinary importance. We don't want to exclude anyone,' the bench said, while granting time to counsel for Uttar Pradesh to seek instructions regarding the interim arrangement. The court also called out the Uttar Pradesh government for the manner in which the state secured an order impacting the management of the Banke Bihari temple without the court hearing its current representatives.'We don't expect the state to do this. You went behind their backs without even giving notice,' the court top court was hearing petitions filed by the temple priests challenging the Banke Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, and also seeking modification of the Supreme Court's earlier order permitting the Uttar Pradesh government to utilise funds for the Shri Banke Bihari Temple in is not the first time the government has been questioned by the top court. In May, when this case was heard by a different bench, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned why the state decided to "hijack" a litigation between two private Conduct, Alleges PetitionerSenior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, alleged that the state had 'sneaked in' and obtained a court order — originally related to another temple — without notice to the Banke Bihari temple's existing management. The court, he claimed, had no opportunity to hear the temple management before the May 15 order was passed, which was now being used to justify the the move 'startling,' Divan argued that the Banke Bihari temple is a private temple, and the state had no right to interfere without proper legal Questions State's ApproachThe ASG, representing the UP government, contended that the temple was not private, and those objecting to the ordinance were unauthorised persons. But the Court was not convinced.'Show us where this court ever intended to hear a temple representative? Why was there no public notice? We don't expect the state to move in this manner; the state should have informed,' the bench an example of how initiatives have been taken around the Golden Temple, the court added: 'Such initiatives can be taken at times instead of using legislative or executive power. You think people will say no if you speak to them? Instead, you went behind their backs.'advertisementThe court repeatedly asked the state: 'What stopped you from acquiring the land legally and paying compensation?'The court, however, clarified that the temple funds will have to be utilised for development and can't be pocketed by private persons in the name of a private Committee LikelyIn light of the controversy, the Supreme Court said it is inclined to form an interim management committee headed by a retired High Court judge. The local collector may also be included in the panel would oversee day-to-day temple affairs until the High Court decides on the validity of the ordinance.'Religious tourism is important. Heritage must be maintained. But there must be an ecosystem where pilgrims feel a sense of order, not mismanagement,' the court state has been directed to take instructions and revert. The bench clarified that the ordinance can be challenged under Article 226 before the High Court but stressed that, in the meantime, a balanced interim arrangement may be necessary.- EndsTune InMust Watch
India Today
33 minutes ago
- India Today
Why Supreme Court's 'true Indian' rebuke to Rahul Gandhi holds no legal binding
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India stayed criminal defamation proceedings against Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, stemming from remarks he made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December Congress MP had claimed that the Chinese army occupied 2,000 sq km of Indian territory and was 'thrashing' Indian soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. These statements led to a defamation complaint from a retired defence official in Lucknow, alleging the remarks insulted and tarnished the image of the Indian Army. The Allahabad High Court had earlier declined to quash the complaint, after which Gandhi had appealed to the Supreme the Supreme Court hearing, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih made pointed oral observations, questioning the senior Congress leader about the credibility and basis of his statements, remarking, 'If you are a true Indian, you would not say all this.' The bench also asked why such claims weren't raised in Parliament instead of on social media or public forums. Despite these oral remarks, the court granted a stay on the ongoing lower court proceedings, awaiting further consideration. Oral observations are comments, queries, or remarks made by judges during court hearings. They are intended as a means for the bench to seek clarification, test the arguments of counsel, and engage in a dynamic examination of the facts, reasoning, and broader implications of a case. Such observations are usually not a part of the official judicial record or operative orders of the foundational principle governing the authority of judicial pronouncements in India is derived directly from the Constitution. Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950, states that "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.'The operative phrase in this provision is "law declared." This is universally interpreted to mean the formal, written, and reasoned judgment that is officially pronounced and signed by the judges after due deliberation. The process of "declaring law" is a formal act, not a casual or conversational observations made by a judge during a hearing do not meet the standard of "law declared." These remarks are part of the deliberative process itself; they are not the final product of that process. They are tentative, exploratory, and often made to test the arguments presented by counsel, to seek clarification, or to express a provisional thought. Therefore, such observations fall outside the mandate of Article 141 and do not carry the force of binding within a final, written judgment, not every statement made by the court has the same legal weight. A judgment is primarily composed of two elements: the ratio decidendi and obiter ratio decidendi, or the "reason for the decision," is the core legal principle or rule of law that was necessary for the court to arrive at its final decision. It is this specific part of the judgment that constitutes the "law declared" and is binding on lower obiter dicta, meaning "things said by the way," are observations made by the court that are not essential to the final determination of the case. These might include hypothetical scenarios, discussions on broader legal principles not directly at issue, or passing comments. While obiter dicta from the Supreme Court are given immense respect and have significant persuasive value, they are not strictly binding as this established hierarchy within a formal written judgment, it follows logically that oral remarks made during a hearing, which are not even recorded as part of the judgment, rank significantly lower than obiter dicta. They are pre-decisional dialogues and cannot be elevated to the status of either ratio decidendi or even formal obiter IS THE PURPOSE OF ORAL OBSERVATIONS?While legally non-binding, oral observations made by judges serve as an integral part of the dynamic dialogue between the bench and the often raise contrary views or ask hypothetical questions during the course of a hearing to test the strength and coherence of an argument. Often, oral observations are also a means for the bench to seek more information or clarity on a particular fact or point of importantly, however, oral remarks made during the course of a hearing can provide valuable insight into the preliminary thinking of the judges on the bench. This often allows lawyers to focus their arguments on the primary areas of concern for the these observations are open to change. A judge may express a preliminary view orally but may come to an entirely different conclusion after hearing further arguments or upon deeper reflection during the writing of the observations made by the Supreme Court often make it to the news headlines. In July 2022, the Supreme Court made strong remarks blaming BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for 'making the country burn' due to her televised remarks. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala said Sharma was 'single handedly responsible' for the violence and outrage arising out of her remarks and said she should 'apologize to the whole country'. None of these statements formed part of the official order of the recently, in February 2025 the Supreme Court chastised YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia for a controversial joke stating 'there is something very dirty in his mind'. The bench called his comments 'disgusting', 'filthy' and 'insulting', though none of these observations made it to the final written order, while the Supreme Court's sharp oral rebuke of Rahul Gandhi carries undeniable rhetorical and political impact, it does not amount to a legal determination of his patriotism; nor does it have any binding effect on the definition of a 'true Indian.'As explained above, the only authoritative doctrine to emerge from a case is found in the court's final judgment, not in real-time exchanges during arguments. This is a distinction that is not just technical, it's foundational to India's judicial discipline.- EndsMust Watch
