​More and better: On India’s educational infrastructure  

The Supreme Court of India’s ruling that there can be no reservation based on residence in admission to PG medical courses is consistent with the constitutional mandate of equality before law, but may adversely affect the priorities and health-care requirements of the States. The Court has reminded everyone that there is only one ‘domicile’ for Indians, and that the right to seek admissions anywhere in the country must be open to residents of all States. This is in line with a series of verdicts on the question whether there can be admissions based on institutional preference or residential requirements. The view is that institutional preference, that is choosing candidates who had passed out of an institution for admission to PG courses in the same institution, is constitutionally permissible; and that admission to UG medical courses can have a residential requirement, primarily because the basic medical needs of a region can be better addressed by admitting more people from the same background so that doctors emerging from the system would render public service there. However, on the principle that higher qualifications brook no compromise with merit, the prevailing view is that PG courses should not be open for any such residential preference, as the need to attract the best talent is higher.

Many States do fill up PG seats in government medical colleges, and seats available to them in private colleges, barring those that are filled on an all-India basis, with candidates drawn from their own States. Candidates from other States can enter PG medical courses in a State only through the national quota. This system, now impermissible, has its own justification, as PG students form the backbone of medical services in government hospitals. In addition, such students have the additional incentive of joining government service and, thereby, acquiring eligibility to apply for PG courses as ‘service candidates’. The southern States, in particular, have invested heavily in medical education, establishing a college in almost every district. These would like to accommodate more candidates from their States to keep their medical services going and with an eye on future manpower needs. It is expected that aggrieved States may seek a review of this judgment. It is likely that the verdict will result in the Union government finding one more way to restrict the role of the States in medical admissions. Interestingly, the distinction the Court has made between PG and UG courses when it comes to prioritising local needs may be a sound argument in itself for questioning the continuing tendency to centralise even UG admissions across streams. The solution lies in creating educational infrastructure of near-uniform quality in every district.