On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the State of Telangana, overturning a Telangana High Court ruling that had relaxed the requirement for permanent residents to study or reside in Telangana for four consecutive years to qualify for the domicile quota in MBBS and BDS admissions. A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran upheld the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, as amended in 2024, which mandate that candidates must study in Telangana for four consecutive years to be considered “local candidates” for the 85% local quota.
To address challenges faced by children of transferable employees, the state introduced an amendment on July 19, 2024, via G.O. No. 33, which the Supreme Court accepted. The amendment allows eligibility for candidates who studied outside Telangana during the requisite four years if they are:
- children of Telangana State Government employees serving outside the state;
- children of All India Services (IAS/IFS/IPS) officers of the Telangana cadre;
- children of defence personnel, ex-servicemen, or Central Armed Police Force members with a declared Telangana hometown; or
- children of employees of Telangana government corporations transferable across India, provided they submit a certificate of parental service outside Telangana corresponding to the period of study.
The High Court had previously “read down” Rule 3(a) and 3(iii) of the 2017 Rules, arguing they should not apply to permanent residents and directing the state to define “permanent residents.” The state challenged this, asserting its authority to set residence-based criteria for local candidates, particularly to benefit marginalized sections less likely to access out-of-state coaching. The respondents, students, argued that the rule ignored realities like parental job transfers, which force families to leave Telangana despite retaining roots.
Citing the Presidential Order under Article 371D, which permits preferential treatment for local candidates, and prior precedents, the Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Chandran, stated: “We have already held that the pre-amended rule defining a local candidate was perfectly in order, which reasoning applies squarely to the amended rule also. There was no warrant for a reading down when the definition is clear, in consonance with the Presidential Order and similar rules having been upheld by this Court as coming out from the binding precedents. We find no reason to take a different view with respect to the amended rule also; 15% having been conceded to the All-India quota.”
The court upheld the amended rules, ensuring fairness while accommodating specific exceptions. Appearances included Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, and A. Sudarshan Reddy for the state, and Senior Advocates P.B. Suresh, Raghenth Basant, Prakash Deu Naik, and Advocate Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi for the students, with Senior Advocate S. Sriram for the impleader.
Case Details: The State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024 | 2025 INSC 1058
Click Here for Full Judgment
Lawcutor 