Introduction:

In Sawan Bohra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP No. 38169 of 2025), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, through a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, delivered a significant ruling invalidating the 2025 amendment to the MP Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018. The amendment introduced on September 3, 2025, revised the eligibility criteria for admission to postgraduate medical courses in private colleges by granting 100% institutional preference to candidates who had completed their MBBS from medical colleges located within Madhya Pradesh and recognized by the National Medical Commission. This effectively barred students who completed MBBS outside the state from participating in the first round of PG counselling and, due to Rule 11’s restrictions, from participating even in the second round. The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Shashank Verma and his team, challenged this amendment as a disguised form of total reservation violating Supreme Court precedents on merit-based admissions. The State defended the rule as a legitimate preference system addressing regional healthcare needs. After examining constitutional principles, judicial precedents, and the practical implications of the amendment, the High Court held that the amendment amounted to an impermissible 100% reservation, rendering it unconstitutional and directing the State to allow all eligible candidates, including those from outside Madhya Pradesh, to participate in the counselling process.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners argued that the amendment introduced on September 3, 2025, effectively created a 100% institutional reservation for postgraduate medical seats in private colleges by restricting eligibility exclusively to MBBS graduates from medical colleges situated within Madhya Pradesh. They contended that this condition violated binding Supreme Court precedents, particularly Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) and Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, wherein the Court held that no more than 50% of the total seats in postgraduate medical courses could be reserved by way of institutional preference or domicile. The petitioners submitted that the so-called “exception” allowing candidates from outside the State to participate in the second round of counselling was illusory because Rule 11 of the 2018 Rules barred any candidate from registering for the second round without having registered in the first round. Since the first round was open only to MBBS graduates from Madhya Pradesh, students from other states were completely excluded from registering at all. They further pointed out that the total seat distribution—15% NRI quota, 30% in-service quota, and the remaining seats filled by institutional preference—left no open category seats, resulting in 100% reservation by different categories, something repeatedly condemned by the Supreme Court. The petitioners therefore sought quashing of the amendment as unconstitutional and violative of equality and merit.

Contrarily, the State argued that the amendment did not amount to a blanket reservation and instead functioned as a sequential preference system based on objective and rational criteria. According to the State, candidates who completed their MBBS from institutions within Madhya Pradesh were better equipped to understand the regional disease burden, local epidemiology, language, patient profiles, and public health challenges unique to the State. This familiarity, the State claimed, justified prioritizing such candidates for postgraduate medical education, which would in turn improve the long-term healthcare infrastructure of Madhya Pradesh. The State maintained that institutional preference has judicial recognition and that its amendment merely sought to assign an initial preference without completely excluding candidates from other states. It asserted that seats unfilled after the first round could be offered to candidates from outside Madhya Pradesh in the subsequent rounds of counselling. The State emphasized that the goal of the amendment was not to discriminate but to strengthen regional healthcare capability by ensuring that PG trainees were familiar with the State’s medical practices and challenges. Represented by the Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh, the State urged the Court to uphold the amendment as a reasonable classification serving a legitimate public purpose.

Court’s Judgment:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the State’s defence and accepted the petitioners’ challenge, holding that the amendment to the MP Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018, was unconstitutional to the extent it created a 100% reservation for MBBS graduates from Madhya Pradesh in private medical colleges’ postgraduate courses. Referring extensively to Pradeep Jain and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, the bench reiterated that while limited institutional preference may be permissible, no reservation—whether based on domicile, residence, or institutional preference—can exceed 50% of the total seats. The Court held that prescribing an eligibility condition requiring that the candidate must have completed MBBS from a college within Madhya Pradesh effectively amounted to a form of reservation masquerading as an eligibility criterion. The Court emphasized that the constitutional bar on excessive reservation cannot be circumvented through technical structuring or disguised preference systems.

The bench found that the exception provided for the second round of counselling was meaningless because Rule 11 prevented unregistered candidates from participating in the second round. Since only MBBS graduates from Madhya Pradesh could register in the first round, all candidates from outside the State were entirely barred from the counselling process. The Court observed that postgraduate medical seats in private institutions were significantly fewer than MBBS seats in the State, making it virtually certain that all PG seats would be filled in the first counselling round by institutional preference candidates, leaving no opportunity for outsiders. The bench also reviewed the seat distribution and noted that out of 1026 seats, 15% were reserved for NRI candidates, 30% for in-service candidates, and the remaining seats were effectively consumed by institutional preference, amounting to a total reservation of 100%. The Court held that such wholesale reservation was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and incompatible with the principle of merit. Concluding that the amendment violated Articles 14 and 15, the bench allowed the petition and directed the State to permit the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates to register and participate in counselling. Additionally, the Court mandated that the State ensure that total reservation, including NRI, in-service, and institutional preference, does not exceed 50% of the total seats in postgraduate medical courses.