Supreme Court Declares Domicile-Based Reservations Unconstitutional | Landmark Judgment Explained

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and Others (2025), has declared domicile-based reservations in postgraduate medical seats as unconstitutional, citing a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The verdict, delivered by Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, reinforces the principle of equality and merit in India's education system.

This decision will have a significant impact on the admission process for PG medical courses, ensuring that State Quota seats are filled solely on the basis of NEET merit, promoting fairness and national unity. While students already admitted under domicile-based reservations will not be affected, the ruling sets a precedent for future cases.

The video delves into:
✅ The origins of the case in Chandigarh and the Government Medical College and Hospital's admission process.
✅ The Supreme Court's reasoning on why domicile-based reservations violate constitutional principles like Article 14.
✅ Landmark cases referenced, including Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003).
✅ The difference between domicile status and place of birth, based on the DP Joshi v. Madhya Bharat (1955) case.
✅ How the ruling strengthens the idea of single citizenship and national unity in India.

Watch the full video to understand the key takeaways from this historic verdict and its implications for India's education and healthcare systems.

📢 Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe for more in-depth analysis of constitutional law and landmark judgments!

#SupremeCourtJudgment #DomicileReservation #NEETPG #IndianConstitution #Article14 #EqualityBeforeLaw #MedicalEducation #TanviBehlCase #JusticeHrishikeshRoy #JusticeSudhanshuDhulia #JusticeSVNBhatti #LegalAnalysis #LandmarkJudgment #MeritBasedEducation #NationalUnity