SC reserves verdict on Telanganas domicile rule for medical admissions
PTI
Last Updated:
New Delhi, Aug 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on pleas including one of the Telangana government against an order that struck down its domicile rule for admissions in medical colleges in the state.
The state government through the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) 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(a) of the amended Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, to be interpreted to mean the respondents (candidates) 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. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments
First Published:
August 05, 2025, 15:15 IST
News agency-feeds SC reserves verdict on Telanganas domicile rule for medical admissions
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
24 minutes ago
- The Wire
Data Protection for Whom?
The blanket bar on sharing any personal data – even where larger public interest or its connection to public activity is evident – in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act has been widely seen as diluting the core of the RTI framework. Illustration: The Wire, with Canva The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act was passed in August 2023, but is still not yet active two years on. The draft Rules were released for public consultation in January 2025. These Rules are expected to be finalised and notified soon, as per media reports. While the legislative gap in data protection in India has long been glaring, especially in the context of increasing digitisation across sectors, whether this particular law genuinely protects an individual's right to privacy – without simultaneously undermining the Right to Information (RTI) – remains deeply contested. In particular, Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act has sparked concern. This provision effectively overrides Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which previously allowed for the disclosure of personal information if it served a larger public interest or was related to public activity. With the passage of the DPDP Act, such exceptions have been struck down. Now, the blanket bar on sharing any personal data – even where larger public interest or its connection to public activity is evident – has been widely seen as diluting the core of the RTI framework. What was once a carefully crafted exception to allow for transparency and accountability is now entirely curtailed under the rubric of privacy. It is important to examine the kind of 'personal information' that may fall under public interest, which citizens, activists, journalists and civil society organisations will now be unable to access once the Act and Rules come into full force. Numerous cases of corruption, particularly in public works such as infrastructure, roads and drains, have been unearthed through RTI applications revealing tender details, contract documents and the identities of individuals involved on both sides of the transaction. Such disclosures often expose conflicts of interest and political-business nexuses that underpin policy-making even in the social sector. Also read: Full Text | Justice A.P Shah's Open Letter Seeking Repeal of Recent Amendments to RTI Act For instance, in late 2007, around 30 Members of Parliament, across party lines, wrote to the Ministry of Human Resource Development at the behest of the Biscuit Manufacturers Welfare Association, proposing that mid‑day meals in schools be replaced with packaged biscuits. There was public outcry including demands for these MPs to clarify their associations with the companies concerned. In another instance, Commissioners (on Right to Food) appointed by the Supreme Court were able to show that contracts for supplying take-home rations to anganwadi centres in Maharashtra were awarded to entities labelled as Mahila Mandals but functioning as fronts for large corporate firms – based on information about the ownership and membership of Mahila Mandals. The Supreme Court subsequently directed that the tender process be redone. Under the DPDP Act, access to such information – on the grounds that it constitutes personal data – may now be blocked altogether. There is a very real danger that such efforts to capture public policy by private interests will be shielded under the pretext of privacy protection. Beyond exposing large-scale scams, civil society organisations and activists routinely seek personal data to assist individuals in securing entitlements. For example, when an elderly widow suddenly stops receiving her pension without any notification, or when a household has waited for years to be added to the priority list under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) to obtain a ration card, the route to resolution often begins with checking the status of applications and beneficiary lists. This involves accessing details such as names, reasons for rejection and dates of application – all of which qualify as personal information. Based on this data, citizens can file appeals or complaints, and often secure the benefits they are entitled to. Similarly, social audits conducted in partnership with local communities rely on cross-verifying official records with ground-level testimonies. These audits draw on publicly available lists of beneficiaries, wages paid, ration entitlements, pension disbursements and so on. The new DPDP regime, however, prohibits the sharing of such data unless explicit consent is obtained from each individual – something nearly impossible to operationalise in large-scale audits involving thousands of beneficiaries. To be clear, there is no denying that a robust legal framework for protecting privacy is essential. In the absence of such protections, both rich and poor citizens face exposure to fraud, data theft and misuse. Personal data leakages – ranging from banking details to mobile numbers and identity documents – are rampant, and individuals are routinely subjected to financial scams, unsolicited marketing and phishing attacks. Often, data collected for one purpose – such as KYC verification or government scheme registration – finds its way into other hands without consent. There is also no institutional grievance redressal mechanism to address such misuse. Also read: What Lies Beneath the PR Blitz on the New Data Protection Act? Even state agencies collect data with minimal safeguards or informed consent. The use of facial recognition for accessing supplementary nutrition under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme, or mandatory e-KYC for schemes such as old-age pensions and the public distribution system, involve the mass collection of biometric and demographic data without any clear accountability. In some instances, access to entitlements is denied simply because individuals refuse or fail to comply with these invasive requirements. The DPDP Act, in theory, establishes strong penalties for violations. However, the enforcement mechanisms under the Act are opaque. The composition and functioning of the Data Protection Board – a body tasked with adjudicating complaints and imposing penalties – are entirely controlled by the Union government. There is no independent appointments process, no safeguards against arbitrary decision-making, and no clear procedure for appeals. Moreover, there is a genuine worry that smaller civil society initiatives – such as grassroots surveys, independent research and community-based documentation efforts – will be priced out of existence. The compliance costs associated with data processing under the new framework, including consent management, data security audits and liability for breaches, are likely to be prohibitive for most non-profit and community-led groups. This will further tilt the balance in favour of large corporations and well-funded entities that can afford to navigate the legal complexities of the DPDP regime. The fundamental question, then, is whether the DPDP Act manages to balance two equally important constitutional rights: the right to privacy and the right to information. These are not merely procedural or technical issues, but core questions of democratic accountability and citizen empowerment. Often, these two rights come into conflict. The critical test for any legal framework is to determine which right prevails when they do – and for whose benefit. In its current form, the DPDP Act appears to lean heavily in favour of protecting the interests of the powerful – whether in the corporate sector or the government. It grants the government sweeping discretionary powers, including the ability to exempt entire categories of data processing from the provisions of the Act (under Section 17), without any obligation to lay out the principles guiding such exemptions. It allows the government to appoint members to the Data Protection Board without parliamentary oversight or public transparency. And most crucially, it alters the functioning of the RTI Act without debate by amendments to the original law, effectively bypassing the very spirit of participatory democracy that the RTI Act was meant to protect. The debate around the DPDP Act is not merely about technical definitions of data fiduciaries or consent notices. It is a deeper political and constitutional question: does the law empower citizens, or does it shield the powerful? Dipa Sinha is a development economist. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
Enemies within: Iran executes two over Mossad, IS ties
Iran's Supreme Court upheld the death sentences of two men accused of espionage and terrorism, as the government intensifies its efforts to root out foreign intelligence operations and militant threats read more Iran has executed two individuals, one accused of spying for Israel and the other linked to the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group. The executions reported by The Associated Press, citing Iranian state media, in the aftermath of rulings by Iran's Supreme Court. The individual accused of spying for Israel was identified as Rouzbeh Vadi, while the individual linked to IS was identified as Mehdi Asgharzadeh, according to a report in Israel National News. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Vadi was accused of providing classified information to the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency, including details regarding an Iranian nuclear scientist allegedly killed during Israeli airstrikes in June. The Iranian judiciary news site — Mizan Online — reported that Vadi allegedly met with Mossad agents five times in Vienna, Austria. The official IRNA news agency stated that Vadi had connections with sensitive Iranian agencies, making him a valuable asset to Mossad due to his access to critical information. Additionally, a video allegedly showing Vadi's confession was broadcast on state TV, where he claimed to have cooperated with Israel for financial compensation; however, it remains unclear whether the confession was made under duress. Asgharzadeh, the individual linked to IS, was convicted of plotting sabotage within Iran. Mizan Online reported that he had undergone military training in Syria and Iraq as an IS member before illegally entering Iran with a four-man team. The other members of his team were reportedly killed in a confrontation with Iranian security forces. The executions followed confirmation by Iran's Supreme Court that the sentences from lower courts were upheld and that full legal procedures were followed in each case. Iran has a history of accusing Israel of sabotage and frequently arrests and executes individuals accused of spying for Israel. In the past year, Iran has claimed to have executed multiple individuals for allegedly spying for Israel. These include a 'terrorist' involved in a drone attack on a defence ministry site, four individuals who allegedly met with Mossad chief David Barnea and trained in Africa, and an 'Israeli Mossad spy' in December 2023. In May, Iran executed Pedram Madani, 41, who was also convicted of spying for Israel. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These executions highlight the ongoing tensions between Iran and Israel, as well as Iran's efforts to combat both Israeli espionage and terrorist activities within its borders.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Boxing official accused of insulting India's Olympic medallist - Here's what he said
Guwahati: Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Olympian boxer Lovlina Borgohain during the inauguration of her boxing academy, in Guwahati. (PTI Photo)(PTI06_05_2025_000155B) Tokyo Olympics bronze medallist Lovlina Borgohain has accused Col Arun Malik (Retd), Executive Director and interim committee member of the Boxing Federation of India (BFI), of "disrespectful and gender-discriminatory behaviour. " The reigning world middleweight champion and Khel Ratna awardee stated that the episode 'left me deeply hurt, disheartened, and questioning the respect and dignity we, as women athletes, truly receive.' Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW! However, Malik had denied all allegations. 'Lovlina is the pride of the nation, and we at BFI take immense pride in her achievements, especially her Olympic bronze," Malik said in a statement. "I respectfully and categorically deny the allegations levelled. The call in question was thoroughly professional in its entirety. Poll Do you believe Lovlina Borgohain's accusations against Col Arun Malik are justified? Yes, I support her. No, I don't believe her. Unsure/Need more information. "It was attended by officials from SAI and TOPS and was officially recorded by the host. The same recording is with the respective officials for review. Matters raised by Lovlina were duly noted and addressed in line with BFI's established policies, which apply uniformly to all athletes.' Lovlina Borgohain is set to take place in Liverpool in September. The 20-member squad was finalised after the boxers went through a week-long assessment at the National Institute of Sports (NIS), Patiala. The tournament, to be held from September 4 to 14, will be the first World Championships held under the aegis of the new governing body of the sport, World Boxing. It will feature competitions in 10 weight classes for men and women. It will also be for the first time ever that male and female boxers would compete in an Olympics-style boxing at the same event for the title of World Boxing Champion. Borgohain had missed the women's nationals in March. The Tokyo Olympic bronze medallist Borgohain had missed the event as the Assam state unit refused to send her due to infighting in the federation. Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
