Supreme Court upholds Telangana's 4-year domicile rule for NEET MBBS admissions

The Supreme Court has set aside the Telangana High Court order that had relaxed the State’s domicile requirement for medical college admissions. The Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the rule mandating candidates to have studied or resided in Telangana for four consecutive years to claim the domicile quota is neither exclusionary nor constitutionally invalid.

According to Bar and Bench reports, the court noted that without a clear legal definition of “residence” or official rules for issuing residence certificates, the High Court’s order could cause confusion and disputes over who qualifies for the domicile quota.

"At the outset, we have to state that without a definition of what constitutes residence or at least without reference to a statute or rule prescribing the issuance of a residence certificate, the directions issued by the High Court would only result in an anomalous situation, making the reservation unworkable and open to a series of litigation," the judgment said.

Telangana domicile rule affects NEET aspirants

The decision directly impacts National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Undergraduate (NEET UG) 2025 candidates from Telangana. To be eligible for the State quota in Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) and Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) courses, candidates will now have to fulfil the requirement of studying or residing in the State for four consecutive years before appearing for NEET.

Students who studied outside Telangana, including in Andhra Pradesh or other states, may no longer automatically qualify for the domicile quota. Candidates who do not meet the four-year requirement will lose the domicile quota benefit and will have to compete under the All India Quota or other state quotas.

Exceptions for students of transferred parents

The Supreme Court also highlighted that the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, include exceptions for students whose parents were posted outside the State due to government, defence, or public sector jobs.

These rules allow such students to still claim the domicile quota even if they have not completed the four consecutive years of study or residence in Telangana. The Court noted that these provisions are meant to address the difficulties faced by students who had to leave the State because of their parents’ employment.

“The said proviso should allay and mitigate the grievances of those who claim that they were taken out of the State by compulsion of the movement of their parents outside the State by reason of employment in Government/All-India Services/ Corporations or Public Sector Undertakings constituted as an instrumentality of the State of Telangana as also defence and paramilitary forces who trace their nativity to the State, subject to the conditions thereunder. With only the said reservation, we uphold the Rules of 2017 as it stood amended in 2024,” the Court held.

Also readMCC NEET UG round 2 counselling 2025 registration from September 4; choice filling from September 5

High Court decision on Telangana domicile rule

In September 2024, a Division Bench of Chief Justices Alok Aradhe and J Sreenivas Rao had ruled in favour of the students, holding that permanent residents of Telangana could not be denied domicile quota benefits solely because they studied outside the State. The High Court read down Rule 3(a) and 3(iii), while allowing the State to frame guidelines defining permanent residence.

“Therefore, we read down the Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 19.07.2024. It is held that the aforesaid Rule shall not apply to permanent residents of the State of Telangana. Thus, by reading down the Rule in the manner indicated above shall also be in consonance of object of Article 371D(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of India i.e., of making special provision to the people of different parts of State for admission to educational institutions," the High Court said.

The Supreme Court appeal argued that the High Court’s interpretation limited the State’s legislative competence to define residency and domicile criteria for admission, potentially delaying the allotment of MBBS and BDS seats.