The judgement of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh striking down the 100 per cent domicile-based restriction on admissions to private medical and paramedical colleges marks a watershed moment in the region’s education policy. The HC verdict allowing non-domicile students to fill vacant Bachelor of Physiotherapy and AYUSH seats once the local quota is exhausted reflects a pragmatic, merit-oriented approach to higher education. More importantly, it underscores a principle too often forgotten in the bureaucracy of regulations: no educational seat should ever go to waste.
Establishing and running a professional college, particularly in the medical or paramedical field, involves a labyrinth of codal formalities and substantial financial investment. From infrastructure and laboratories to hospital attachments, qualified faculty, and continuous maintenance, every element demands sustained expenditure. For private institutions, survival depends squarely on the intake of students, since there are no Government grants to cushion operational costs. When, therefore, a large number of seats remain unfilled year after year due to rigid domicile clauses, the consequences are devastating – not only for the institutions but also for the broader educational ecosystem.
The petitioners rightly pointed out that despite meeting all statutory and academic requirements, they were unable to fill even half of their sanctioned seats. The domicile rule, combined with the insistence on NEET scores, created an unrealistic bottleneck that choked opportunities for both students and colleges. Empty classrooms translate to financial losses, underutilised infrastructure, and demoralised faculty – all of which undermine the sustainability of these institutions.
HC’s ruling upholds the constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), emphasising that while the Government has every right to regulate admissions to ensure academic standards, such regulation cannot lead to economic and educational waste. The verdict is also rooted in simple logic. When premier institutions such as IITs, IIMs, and NITs admit students on the basis of national-level merit, why should private colleges in Jammu and Kashmir be barred from doing the same? These are specialised technical courses in the field of medicine – professions that require both merit and motivation. Denying deserving students from other states the opportunity to study merely because of a domicile clause not only violates equality but also deprives the nation of potential skilled professionals.
Historically, too, the argument for inclusivity stands strong. Even when the erstwhile State Subject laws were in place, educational institutions such as B.Ed. and ETT colleges were open to candidates from outside the State. The logic was simple – education thrives on diversity and demand. If the local pool of aspirants is limited, the institutions must be allowed to attract students from elsewhere to maintain their viability.
It is, therefore, perplexing that while non-local entrepreneurs are encouraged to set up industries and invest in J&K, an outside student seeking admission to a vacant seat faces artificial barriers. This contradiction is both unfair and counterproductive. If Jammu and Kashmir aspires to become an educational hub, as successive Governments have declared, then domicile restrictions are retrogressive and must be dismantled without delay. The High Court’s verdict should serve as a guiding precedent for other technical and professional institutions across the Union Territory. Regulators like the Board of Professional Entrance Examinations and the administrative departments concerned must now review existing policies and ensure that merit, not domicile, remains the ultimate criterion. Moreover, such disputes should ideally never reach the courtroom. The regulating authorities and college managements are long-term partners in the mission of education – both share the responsibility to foster learning, sustain institutions, and generate employment.
The judgement promotes a balanced ecosystem – one that protects merit, supports private investment, and prevents national resources from lying idle. The direction to allow NEET-based admissions, with the flexibility to lower cut-offs and open remaining seats to all-India candidates, ensures that every seat finds a deserving student. Education is a public good, and in a country with an enormous youth population, denying access through bureaucratic rigidity is indefensible. The government must now take a cue from this judgment to reform its admission policies, ensuring that the twin goals of fairness and functionality guide every decision in the education sector.
The post HC’s Pragmatic Verdict appeared first on Daily Excelsior.