Petitioner-Pradeep Jain
Respondent-Union of India
Decided On: 22 June, 1984
Statues Referred –
- The Constitution of India
Case referred–
- Jagdish Saran v. Union of India
- Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India.
Facts-
1)The material for thought before the Apex Court in this case was whether admissions to a medical college or any other institute of higher education situated in a state might be limited to those who had their ‘domicile’ within the State.
2) Or those who were local within the State for a certain number of years or might any reservation in admissions be made for them so as to give them precedence over those who do not possess ‘domicile’
3) Or inhabited requirement within the State, irrespective of merit.
Issue-
- Whether the domicile benefit should be given to the resident within the state?
- Whether the policy of admission on the ground of domicile is justice to all student?
Contention
Petitioner’s arguments
1)The Petitioners confronted the said strategy of admission on the ground of domicile persistent the equality clause as providing for under Article 14, 15, 19 and
2) Art.301 of the Constitution of India. It was demanded that the inhabited obligation as a condition of eligibility for employment
3) Or selection to a workplace under the State was unauthorized having regard to the expansive meaning given to the word ‘State’ in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India.
Respondent argument
The Respondents defended the said plan on the ground that Article 16(2) had no application
1) so far as admissions to an educational institute such as a medical college were concerned.
2) It was claimed that what Article 16(2) provided was invalidation of discrimination on ground of place of birth and since the condition in the present case was in respects residence, it was not hit by the said Article
Judgment
Dismissing the petition, the Apex Court held that each and every kind of discrimination was not a violation of the constitutional concept of equality and did not necessarily undermine the unity of India.
1) The validity of any discrimination was to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution wherein appropriate classification may form the very core of equality and promote unity in the true sense amidst diversity.
2) Thereby the Court upheld reservation to seats on the grounds of domicile.
Rule of law– The provision of the law which was under inspection by the Hon’ble apex court of India was the Domicile is mainly a legal idea for the determination of defining what is the personal law appropriate to an individual and even if an individual has no enduring home, he is invested with a domicile by law.
Conclusion
The message of the Court in this case is loud and clear. While a random and illogical discernment between people shall not be endured at any cost, there can be rational classification in order to endorse equality in true sense of the term.
Thus reservation of seats on the grounds of domicile, being meant to promote a particular class of backwards or under-developed area, shall be permissible so as to promote and attain equality in true sense.