THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, Jan 30: In a judgment that could have significant implications for Jharkhand, the Supreme Court has ruled that the concept of regional or state-specific domicile is foreign to the Indian legal system. The Court emphasized that all Indian citizens share a single domicile—the Domicile of India.
These observations were made while striking down residence-based reservations in postgraduate medical admissions, declaring them unconstitutional. In its ruling delivered on January 29, the Court noted that domicile is relevant only when a country has multiple legal systems, which is not the case in India.
“Each citizen of this country carries a single domicile—the ‘Domicile of India.’ The concept of regional or state-specific domicile is alien to the Indian legal system,” stated the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti.
Jharkhand Assembly Passed Domicile-Based Job Policy
The ruling is particularly significant for Jharkhand, where all political parties in the State Assembly voted in favour of a domicile-based reservation policy for government jobs. However, the Raj Bhawan returned the bill for reconsideration.
SC Cites Landmark Pradeep Jain Case
The Supreme Court referenced the landmark Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India (1984) case, which clarified that state governments often misuse the term ‘domicile’ to mean ‘permanent residence.’ In legal terms, domicile primarily determines the personal law applicable to an individual.
Also Read: IIT ISM Dhanbad signs MoU with MoRTH for tunnel design
SC Refers to Judgment by Justice M.C. Chagla
The Court also cited the Bombay High Court’s ruling in The State v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame, authored by Justice M.C. Chagla. The judgment reaffirmed:
“The very concept of a provincial or state domicile in India is a misconception. There is only one domicile in India, which we refer to as the domicile in the territory of India, as defined under Article 5. All Indians have only one domicile—the Domicile of India.”
‘Permanent Residence’ and ‘Domicile’ Are Distinct Concepts
The apex court clarified the distinction between ‘permanent residence’ and ‘domicile.’ Under Article 15 of the Constitution, the state is prohibited from discriminating against citizens based on place of residence. Similarly, Article 16 prevents states from granting reservations in public employment based on residence.
The only exception is under Clause 3 of Article 16, which allows Parliament—not state legislatures—to pass laws requiring residence for government jobs.
Parliament Alone Can Legislate on Residence-Based Employment
The ruling also referred to Constituent Assembly debates on whether residence in a state should be a criterion for government employment. The overwhelming consensus was that it should not be, as all citizens have the right to live and work anywhere in India.
Ultimately, the Constitution-makers decided that residence should not be a basis for employment discrimination. In cases where residence within a state or union territory is deemed essential, only Parliament—not state legislatures—has the authority to enact such laws, ensuring uniformity across the country.
Concluding its position, the Court stated:
“We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country grants us not only the right to choose our residence anywhere in India but also the right to carry on trade, business, or a profession across the country. It also gives us the right to seek admission to educational institutions nationwide.”
