Currently Empty: ₹0.00
Can J&K Migrants Claim Medical Admission Without Punjab Domicile?
Admission to professional medical courses is governed by detailed eligibility conditions, reservation policies and counselling rules. When a special category is created for candidates displaced by circumstances such as terrorist violence, however, the question becomes more complicated: should such candidates also be required to satisfy the ordinary State-residence conditions applicable to State quota admissions?
The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered this question in Riddhi Zutshi (Minor Through Her Natural Guardian) v. State of Punjab & Others, decided on 23 September 2026.
The dispute concerned admission to MBBS and BDS courses for the 2026 academic session under the 1% quota for migrants from Jammu and Kashmir displaced due to terrorist violence. The petitioner argued that candidates seeking the benefit of this category should also satisfy the State-quota eligibility requirements under the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) prospectus.
However, the Court interpreted the current prospectus differently. It held that the applicable 2026 prospectus expressly incorporated the Government of India instructions granting eligible J&K migrants a waiver of the domicile requirement. Therefore, requiring such candidates to establish Punjab residence would defeat the purpose of the special category.
1. Case Snapshot
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Case | Riddhi Zutshi (Minor Through Her Natural Guardian) v. State of Punjab & Others |
| Case Number | CWP-25413-2026 |
| Date | 23 September 2026 |
| Bench | Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur |
| Subject | J&K migrant quota and eligibility for MBBS/BDS admissions |
| Admission Session | 2026 |
| University Involved | Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS), Faridkot |
| Core Issue | Whether eligible J&K migrants must also satisfy Punjab-residence requirements to claim the 1% migrant quota |
| Key Provision/Rule | Clause 11 and Clause 16(x) of the BFUHS 2026 Prospectus |
| Outcome | Writ petition dismissed |
| Important Principle | The 2026 prospectus waived the domicile/residence requirement for eligible J&K migrants; no additional Punjab-residence condition could be imposed |
2. Background and Facts
The petitioner was a minor student who had qualified the NEET-UG 2026 examination conducted on 21 June 2026.
She possessed a Migrant Certificate issued by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrants), Jammu). She also had a Punjab Resident Certificate showing that she had been born in Ludhiana. Her claim was that candidates satisfying the ordinary State-quota eligibility requirements should receive preference within the 1% quota reserved for J&K migrants.
The admission process for MBBS and BDS courses at BFUHS was governed by the 2026 Prospectus.
Two provisions became particularly important:
- Clause 11, which prescribed eligibility for the State quota; and
- Clause 16(x), which provided a 1% reservation in private institutions for migrants from Jammu and Kashmir displaced due to terrorist violence.
Clause 16(x) also required candidates to produce a valid certificate from the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrants), Jammu. More importantly, it incorporated Government of India instructions providing for a waiver of the domicile requirement for eligible J&K migrants.
The petitioner challenged a communication issued by BFUHS and relied upon an earlier decision, Doyel Koul v. State of Punjab & Others, to argue that J&K migrant candidates who also fulfilled Punjab State-quota conditions should receive preference.
The respondents, however, argued that the 2026 Prospectus was a fresh set of admission rules and had superseded earlier notifications. Therefore, the interpretation adopted in an earlier admission cycle could not simply be carried forward.
3. Legal Issues Before the Court
The Court was required to consider:
- Whether eligible J&K migrants seeking admission under the special migrant quota were required to satisfy the Punjab residence conditions prescribed for the State quota.
- Whether the domicile waiver contained in Clause 16(x) of the 2026 Prospectus removed the ordinary residence requirement for J&K migrants.
- Whether an earlier judgment or clarification relating to a previous admission session could govern the 2026 admission process.
- Whether the petitioner could claim a preference within the J&K migrant quota by requiring candidates to satisfy both J&K migrant status and Punjab-residence conditions.
4. Relevant Legal Concepts
J&K Migrant Quota
The BFUHS 2026 Prospectus created a 1% reservation in private institutions for migrants from Jammu and Kashmir due to terrorist violence.
The provision required a candidate seeking this benefit to submit a valid certificate issued by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrants), Jammu, establishing that the candidate belonged to a family displaced from J&K due to terrorist violence.
Thus, documentary proof of migrant status remained essential.
Clause 11: State-Quota Eligibility
Clause 11 of the 2026 Prospectus prescribed eligibility for the State quota.
Among other requirements, the candidate had to be an Indian citizen and satisfy specified educational and residence-related conditions, including having studied in Punjab, having been born in Punjab or being a permanent resident of Punjab.
The question was whether these conditions automatically applied to candidates claiming the separate J&K migrant quota.
Domicile Waiver for J&K Migrants
Clause 16(x) expressly stated that, in accordance with the Government of India instructions dated 15 October 2019, a waiver of the domicile requirement would be available to eligible J&K migrants.
The Court therefore had to read Clause 11 and Clause 16(x) together rather than treating the State-quota requirements as independently applicable to every category.
5. What Was the Petitioner’s Argument?
The petitioner argued that the eligibility requirements under Clause 11 should be read together with the J&K migrant quota under Clause 16(x).
According to this argument, candidates should satisfy two conditions:
- They should qualify as J&K migrants; and
- They should also have the necessary connection with Punjab under the State-quota eligibility requirements.
Reliance was placed on the earlier decision in Doyel Kouhttps://indiankanoon.org/doc/158508373/l v. State of Punjab & Others, decided in 2025.
The petitioner also referred to a BFUHS clarification that had provided preference to migrants fulfilling the State-quota conditions.
6. What Did the Respondents Argue?
The State and BFUHS opposed the petition.
It was argued that the 2026 Prospectus was a new admission framework and had superseded earlier notifications.
Unlike the earlier framework, the current prospectus expressly incorporated the Government of India instructions granting a waiver of the domicile requirement to eligible J&K migrants.
Therefore, according to the respondents, requiring candidates to establish Punjab residence would amount to adding a condition that the current prospectus had deliberately removed.
The respondents further pointed out that changing the eligibility rules after the admission process had commenced could affect other candidates who had participated in counselling on the basis of the published prospectus.
7. Court’s Reasoning
First, the current prospectus governed the admission process
The Court emphasised that the 2026 BFUHS Prospectus was the document governing admissions for the relevant academic session.
Accordingly, the eligibility conditions had to be interpreted from the rules applicable to that particular admission cycle.
The earlier admission notifications could not automatically be treated as controlling the 2026 process.
Second, Clause 16(x) expressly provided a domicile waiver
The Court examined Clause 16(x) and found that it specifically incorporated the Government of India instructions granting eligible J&K migrants a waiver of the domicile requirement.
Therefore, the Court held that the residence requirement contained in Clause 11 could not be imposed on J&K migrants merely because Clause 11 prescribed such a requirement for State-quota candidates.
The provisions had to be read harmoniously.
Third, the purpose of the special category had to be considered
The Court also considered the purpose behind the special provision.
J&K migrants covered by the category had been involuntarily displaced from their native State because of terrorist violence. The special admission benefit was intended, among other things, to facilitate access to professional education for such displaced families.
Consequently, requiring these candidates to establish a Punjab residence connection would undermine the very purpose of the domicile waiver.
As the Court observed in substance, if J&K migrants were required to establish residence or a territorial connection with Punjab, the object of the special reservation and preference could be defeated.
Fourth, no other relaxation was created
At the same time, the Court made an important distinction.
The domicile waiver did not mean that every admission requirement was relaxed.
The prospectus expressly confined the benefit to the waiver of domicile requirements. It did not provide relaxation from:
- minimum eligibility requirements;
- NEET cut-off requirements;
- the prescribed reservation quota; or
- additional seats.
Thus, the Court recognised a limited relaxation, rather than an unrestricted exemption from the admission framework.
Finally, the earlier Doyel Koul decision did not control the case
The Court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on Doyel Koul.
However, that decision had arisen under the admission framework applicable to the previous academic session.
The earlier notification did not expressly incorporate the Government of India instructions providing a domicile waiver. Moreover, the 2026 Prospectus expressly superseded earlier admission notifications.
Therefore, the earlier judgment could not be used to impose the same eligibility conditions on the 2026 admission process.
8. Judgment and Final Outcome
After examining the applicable prospectus and the competing submissions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court held that the 2026 Prospectus had deliberately provided eligible J&K migrants with a waiver of the domicile requirement.
Therefore, the petitioner’s attempt to require J&K migrants to satisfy an additional Punjab-residence condition was not accepted.
Importantly, the Court did not hold that J&K migrants must strictly establish Punjab domicile before claiming the quota. Instead, the Court held the opposite: the applicable prospectus had removed that requirement while retaining other eligibility conditions.
The petition was consequently dismissed without any order as to costs.
9. Legal Principle
The case establishes an important principle concerning special admission categories and prospectus-based eligibility:
Where an applicable admission prospectus expressly waives the domicile requirement for an identified special category, candidates belonging to that category cannot be subjected to an additional residence condition that defeats the purpose of the waiver.
At the same time, the waiver must be interpreted narrowly. It does not automatically relax unrelated eligibility requirements unless the governing rules expressly provide for such relaxation.
10. Why Is This Case Important for Law Students?
This judgment is useful for understanding the relationship between reservation policy, administrative rules and statutory interpretation in educational admissions.
It demonstrates that courts do not interpret an admission condition in isolation. Instead, the provisions of the prospectus, government instructions and the purpose of the special category may have to be read together.
The case also highlights an important practical rule:
The admission prospectus matters.
Candidates and institutions cannot simply rely on rules from an earlier academic year when a new prospectus has been issued.
Furthermore, the case illustrates the principle that special concessions must be applied according to their exact scope. Here, the domicile requirement was waived, but other admission standards remained intact.
11. Quick Revision
| Point | Remember |
|---|---|
| Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Case | Riddhi Zutshi (Minor Through Her Natural Guardian) v. State of Punjab & Others |
| Case Number | CWP-25413-2026 |
| Date | 23 September 2026 |
| Bench | Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur |
| Admission | MBBS/BDS, Academic Session 2026 |
| University | BFUHS, Faridkot |
| Special Category | J&K migrants displaced due to terrorist violence |
| Quota | 1% in private institutions |
| Key Rules | Clause 11 and Clause 16(x), BFUHS 2026 Prospectus |
| Core Principle | Eligible J&K migrants receive waiver of the domicile requirement |
| Other Requirements | Minimum eligibility, NEET requirements and other applicable conditions continue |
| Outcome | Writ petition dismissed |
One-Line Takeaway
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that eligible J&K migrants claiming the special admission quota could not be subjected to a separate Punjab-residence requirement when the applicable prospectus expressly waived the domicile condition.
12. Did You Know?
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Tanvi Bahl v. Shrey Goel, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180, while discussing the use of terms such as “domicile,” “permanent residence” and “residence” in admission policies.
The Supreme Court had observed that these expressions are sometimes used differently in admission policies and that, in the strict constitutional sense, an Indian citizen has an Indian domicile rather than a separate State domicile.
The Supreme Court had also distinguished between postgraduate medical admissions and undergraduate medical admissions, recognising that residence-based preferences may be permissible at the undergraduate level in appropriate circumstances.
