All citizens of the country carry a single domicile, which is the "domicile of India"

 All citizens of the country carry a single domicile, which is the "domicile of India"

“We are all domiciles of India; there is no separate provincial or state domicile. There is only one domicile, and we are all residents of India. We have the right to choose our residence anywhere in the country and pursue trade and profession freely. The Constitution also grants us the right to seek admission to educational institutions across India.”

The Case That Led to This Verdict

The Supreme Court’s decision builds on a 2019 case – Dr Tanvi Behl (SV) vs Shrey Goel and Others – in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court had already declared domicile quotas in PG medical admissions unconstitutional. Given the importance of the matter, especially for states like Chandigarh with only one medical college, the issue was referred to a larger three-judge bench for a definitive ruling, which has now been delivered.

 In a judgment delivered on Wednesday (January 29), the Supreme Court observed that the concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system. All citizens of the country carry a single domicile, which is the "domicile of India", the Court added.The Court made these significant observations while declaring that residence-based eservations in PG medical admissions...

Sure! The judgment you're referring to is from the Supreme Court of India, delivered on January 29, 2025. The case citation is:

**Dr. Tanvi Behl (SV) vs. Shrey Goel and Others**

Summary of the Judgment:

The Supreme Court, in a three-judge bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S.V.N. Bhatti, declared that residence-based reservations in postgraduate (PG) medical admissions are **unconstitutional**. The Court emphasized that all citizens of India have a single domicile, which is the "domicile of India," and that the concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system. The judgment further stated that such reservations violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

The Court also referenced the Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India (1984) judgment, which clarified that 'domicile' is a legal concept distinct from 'permanent residence' or 'residence.' The judgment highlighted that the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on the place of residence and that only Parliament can prescribe residence requirements for state employment.