Holding

The Supreme Court held that the 2017 Rules and their 2024 amendment defining ‘local candidate’ are constitutionally valid, derive their legislative authority from Article 371D, the Presidential Order and Entry 25 of List III, and cannot be expanded or read down by the High Court.

Summary

The State of Telangana and its agencies challenged the High Court's expansion of the definition of ‘local candidate’ under the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017, arguing that the definition is prescribed by the Presidential Order issued under Article 371D and the 1983 Act and cannot be altered by a court. The petitioners‑students contended that the definition was too restrictive, failing to account for circumstances such as parental transfers, and sought a broader interpretation based on residence certificates. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional source of the power to make the rules, tracing it to Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, Articles 245, 246 and the special provisions of Article 371D, and held that the 2017 Rules, including the 2024 amendment, are valid and consistent with the Presidential Order. It rejected the High Court’s reading‑down of the definition, finding no arbitrariness or violation of Article 14. The Court upheld the 85% reservation for local candidates, directed the State to frame guidelines for determining domicile, and allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside the writ judgments. Consequently, the writ petitions and special leave petitions filed by the students were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Rules, 2017 are framed under Article 371D and the Presidential Order of 1974.
Whether the Rules are made under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983.
Whether the power to legislate the Rules can be traced to Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule read with Articles 245 and 246.
Whether the High Court can expand the definition of ‘local candidate’ under Article 226.
Whether the pre‑amended definition of ‘local candidate’ is arbitrary or violative of Article 14.
Whether the amended Rule 3 (2024) should be struck down or read down.
Whether the High Court’s reading‑down of the definition is warranted.
Whether the reservation of 85% for local candidates is constitutionally permissible.

Legislation cited

Headnote

362 : 2025 INSC 1058 The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 11217-11269 of 2025) 01 September 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the wisdom of the legislature in defining a can be interfered with and expanded by the High Court u/Art.226. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.371D, 245, 246 – Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admissions) Order, 1974 – Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions)

Subjects

local candidatecompetent authority quotapresidential orderarticle 371Dsubordinate legislationmedical college admissionreservationentry 25 list IIIarticle 14domicileresidence certificateeducation policystate legislationconstitutional validity

Judgment

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 362 : 2025 INSC 1058

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc.
v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 11217-11269 of 2025)
01 September 2025
[B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran,* J.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the wisdom of the legislature in defining a ‘local candidate’
entitled to apply under the ‘Competent Authority Seats/Quota’, by
a subordinate legislation, in consonance with a Presidential Order
issued u/Art.371D of the Constitution of India, can be interfered
with and expanded by the High Court u/Art.226.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Arts.371D, 245, 246 – Andhra Pradesh
Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admissions) Order,
1974 – Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation
of Admissions) Second Amendment Order, 1976 – Telangana
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 1983 – s.3 – Telangana
Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS &
BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 – r.3, amendments in the definition
of ‘local candidates’ – Challenge to – Division Bench of the
High Court expanded the definition to include any student
who produced his residence certificate issued by a competent
authority of the Government of Telangana; the amended rule
was read down to mean those petitioners having permanent
residence or domicile in the State of Telangana, to be considered
as a local candidate; State Government was directed to frame
guidelines to determine the domicile/permanent residence
within the State of Telangana – Interference with:
Held: The amendment provided for the ‘Competent Authority Quota’
in the State of Telangana, which on incorporation in the 2017 Rules
traces its power to legislate, to the Regulation Act of 1983, which
has been brought out u/Entry 25 of List III, Seventh Schedule r/w
Art.371D and the Presidential Order of 1974 as also Arts.245 &
246 – The power enabled under the Presidential Order to make

* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 363

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

special provisions for equitable opportunities and facilities in the
matter of education as conferred u/Art.371D; being education, is
covered u/Entry 25, and has also to be traced to Arts.245 and 246 –
The Act of 1983 confer the power on the State to bring out the
rules in furtherance and in implementation of the Presidential
Order – Hence, the 2017 Rules is sourced to the power conferred
under the Presidential Order, at least, in so far as it determines the
local areas and bring out a definition of local candidates who are
enabled the privilege of admission to medical colleges by virtue of
their status as a local candidate as per the definition – The new rule
provided for reservation to an extent of 85% to those candidates
who have either studied in the educational institutions in the local
area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years
ending with the academic year in which he qualified for admission
or where during the whole or any part of the four consecutive years
ending with the academic year in which he qualified for admission,
resided in the local area but without studying in any educational
institutions, which candidate also should have appeared for the
qualifying examination in the State of Telangana – The pre-amended
rule defining a local candidate was perfectly in order, which reasoning
applies squarely to the amended rule also – There was no warrant
for a reading down when the definition is clear, in consonance with
the Presidential Order and similar rules having been upheld by this
Court – No reason to take a different view w.r.t the amended rule
also; 15% having been conceded to the All-India quota – A further
amendment proposed, incorporating a proviso to r.3 should allay
and mitigate the grievances of those who claim that they were taken
out of the State by compulsion of the movement of their parents
outside the State by reason of employment in Government/All-India
Services/Corporations or Public Sector Undertakings constituted
as an instrumentality of the State of Telangana as also defence
and paramilitary forces who trace their nativity to the State, subject
to the conditions thereunder – With only the said reservation, the
2017 Rules are upheld as it stood amended in 2024 – Impugned
judgments in the Writ Petitions filed by the students are set aside –
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. [Paras 19, 32, 33, 35, 36]

Constitution of India – Arts.371D, 245 r/w 246 – Andhra Pradesh
Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admissions) Order,
1974 – Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation
of Admissions) Second Amendment Order, 1976 – Telangana
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
364 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 1983 – s.3 – Telangana
Medical & Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS
& BDS Courses) Rules, 2017:
Held: The source of power to legislate has to be traced to
Arts.245 r/w 246, while the entries in the three lists under the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution are fields of legislation,
demarcated as exclusively available to the Union, the State and
concurrently; with the Parliament having overriding powers in
matters enumerated as concurrent – When enacting a legislation,
it is also permissible that the Parliament or the State Legislature
may choose to occupy the various fields under the three lists but
restricting to such demarcation of powers delineated u/Art.246 –
The States’ power to legislate in the field of education as covered
u/Entry 25 of List III has all the same to be traced to Arts.245 &
246, especially when there is no Union legislation on the subject/
field – The power enabled under the Presidential Order to make
special provisions for equitable opportunities and facilities in the
matter of education as conferred u/Art.371D; being education, is
covered u/Entry 25, and has also to be traced to Arts.245 & 246
– Thus, the Act of 1983 confer the power on the State to bring out
the rules in furtherance and in implementation of the Presidential
Order – Hence, the 2017 Rules is sourced to the power conferred
under the Presidential Order, at least, in so far as it determines
the local areas and bring out a definition of local candidates who
are enabled the privilege of admission to medical colleges by
virtue of their status as a local candidate as per the definition –
Conduct of examination, admission of students, prescription of fee
and reservation would be a power conferred on the State u/Entry
25 of List III – The 2017 Rules is one authorised by the statute,
which in turn traces the source of its power to the Constitution
and adopts the definition as available in the Presidential Order.
[Paras 18-20]

Case Law Cited
Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon [1972] 2 SCR 33 : (1971) 2 SCC
779; Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India [1970] 1
SCR 479 : (1969) 2 SCC 166; State of West Bengal v. Kesoram
Industries Ltd. [2004] 1 SCR 564 : (2004) 10 SCC 201; Tamil
Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others v. Union of India
and Others [2020] 8 SCR 583 : (2021) 6 SCC 568; Ahmedabad
Municipal Corpn. v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore [1999] Supp. 3 SCR
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 365

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

647 : (1999) 8 SCC 139; Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi &
Ors. [1989] 2 SCR 858 : (1989) 3 SCC 112; C. Surekha v. Union
of India (1988) 4 SCC 526 : AIR 1989 SC 44; State of Andhra
Pradesh v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited [2002] 3
SCR 278 : (2002) 5 SCC 203; Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of
Kerala [1996] 2 SCR 23 : (1996) 7 SCC 637; P. Sambamurthy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh [1987] 1 SCR 879 : (1987) 1 SCC
362 – referred to.
D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat and Ors. [1955] 1 SCR
1215 : (1955) 1 SCC 58; Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore
& Anr. [1971] Supp. 1 SCR 381 : (1971) 2 SCC 22; Pradeep
Jain v. Union of India [1984] 3 SCR 942 : 1984 AIR 1420; Dinesh
Kumar (Dr.) v. Motilal Nehru College [1986] 3 SCR 345 : (1986) 3
SCC 727; Anant Madan v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 135;
Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam and Others, 2018 INSC 718 :
[2018] 11 SCR 329 – relied on.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges
Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules,
2017; Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations of
Admissions) Order, 1974; Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions
(Regulation of Admissions) Second Amendment Order, 1976;
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014; Telangana Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation
Fee), Act, 1983; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Local candidate; Competent Authority Seats/Quota; Presidential
Order issued under Article 371D of Constitution of India; Subordinate
legislation; Medical and Dental Colleges Admission; Admission to
medical colleges by virtue of status as a local candidate; Local
candidate in relation to a local area; Local area; Benefit to local
candidates in the State of Telangana; Preferential admission to
the medical courses; Admission to the course of MBBS and BDS;
Power to legislate; Entry 25 of List III; Instrumentality of the State;
Students from the marginalized sections; Expansion of definition
by the High Court; Undivided State of Andhra Pradesh; Equitable
opportunities; Matters of public employment and education; Articles
245 and 246 of the Constitution of India.
366 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
11217-11269 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2024 of the High Court
for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP Nos. 21910, 22025,
22097, 22101, 22104, 22144, 22149, 22156, 22162, 22260, 22285,
22330, 22374, 22376, 22377, 22389, 22390, 22399, 22401, 22405,
22435, 22437, 22440, 22443, 22447, 22465, 22537, 22658, 22717,
22738, 22862, 22892, 23061, 23079, 23182, 23271, 23346, 23430,
23471, 23490, 23509, 23517, 23533, 23720, 23722, 23723, 23929,
23961, 24005, 24011, 24283, 24307 and 24353 of 2024
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11270, 11271 and 24826 of 2025 and WP (C)
Nos. 637, 672, and 661 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
A. Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate General, Dr. Abhishek Singhvi,
Gopal Sankarnarayanan, DVSS Somayajulu, P.B. Suresh, Sr.
Advs. Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Siddivardhan, P. Venkatraju, Kumar
Abhishek, Ms. M. Harshini, Kumar Nikhil, V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit
Sengupta, Swayam Prakash Kashyap, Sravan Kumar Karanam,
Irshad Ahmad, S Manoj Selvaraj, Ms. Zohra Bano, Jude Rohit,
Maria Mugesh Kannan, Vishal Sinha, Satish Pandey, Akbar Ali,
Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Sadiya Shakeel, Dr. Nafis A Siddiqui, Braj
Kishore Mishra, Vipin Nair, Ms. M.b.ramya, Aditya Narendranath,
Ms. Deeksha Gupta.
Advs. for the Respondents:
P.B. Suresh, DVSS Somayajulu, Raghenth Basant, Prakash
Deu Naik, Mayur Reddy, S. Sriram, Sr. Advs., Vipin Nair, Aditya
Narendranath, Ms. M.B.Ramya, Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Ms. Bhabna
Das, Vishnu Kanth Mundada, Ms. Hima Bharadwaj, Dnyaneshwar
N. Telange, Dr. Sunil Baliram Gaikwad, Shubham Kumar Pandey,
Vairawan A.S, Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Arpit Kumar Mishra, Alluri
Divakar Reddy, Ms. Oshi Verma, Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Sangram
Patnaik, Jha Amlendu Kumar Akhilesh Kumar, Suryavir, Pavan
Kumar Chaturvedi, Ms. Swayamsidha Patnaik, Guntur Pramod
Kumar, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava,
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Alekshendra Sharma, Aditya Kumar,
V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta, Rohit Jaiswal,Deepak
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 367

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

Bahl, Abid Ali Beeran, Sriram P., Nalukettil Anandhu S. Nair,
Ms. Maneesha Sunilkumar, Irshad Ahmad, Shaik Mohamad Haneef,
Ms. A Deepthi, Ms. Ratna Prabha, Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Sangram
Patnaik, Jha Amlendu Kumar Akhilesh Kumar, Suryavir, Pavan
Kumar Chaturvedi, Ms. Swayamsidha Patnaik, Rahul Shukla,
Mrs. Bachita Baruah Shukla, Ramandeep Singh, Ms. Vagisha
Tripathi, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Miss Akansha, Akash Kumar
Baglekar, Anurag, Kunwar Vishal Singh, Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu,
Mahendra Kumawat, Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Vivek
Rajan D.B, Hemant Gupta, Saaketh Kasibhatla, Kartik Brundavan,
M. Dharun Lakshman, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ishaan George,
Ms. Dr. Rukma George, Archit Jain, Ashhab Khan, Aman Ahluwalia,
B. Shravanth Shanker, Ms. Prerna Robin, Ms. Grahita Agarwal,
B. Yeshwanth Raj, K Sita Rama Rao, Arvind Gupta, Anil Kumar
Sahu, Kanav Bhardwaj, Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Ms. Ritu Reniwal.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Leave granted.
2. Whether the wisdom of the legislature in defining a ‘local candidate’
entitled to apply under the ‘Competent Authority Seats/Quota’, by
a subordinate legislation, in consonance with a Presidential Order
issued under Article 371D of the Constitution of India, can be
interfered with and expanded by the High Court under Article 226,
is the question arising in these batch of appeals.
3. The State of Telangana in their appeals allege that the expansion
of the definition, on the subjective satisfaction of the High Court,
would lead to frustrating the special provision under Article 371D,
intended to confer a benefit to those local candidates in the State of
Telangana who can be given preferential admission to the medical
courses. The true test being not the claim of nativity by descent, but
by their residence and their continued education within the State,
culminating with the appearance in the qualifying examination within
the State, establishing the real bonding and true integration into the
local environment. This raises a valid presumption that they would
continue working, after qualifying, in the locality, serving the people of
368 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the State. The respondents-students, however, urge that the definition
of local candidate itself is gross and does not reckon the vagaries of
life and employment of the parents, which takes the children away
from the State, whose roots remain all the same within the State.
4. The State counters that the definition has been molded in such a
manner as to not only benefit those people who studied and resided
for a considerable period within the State; but also ensure that those
students who come from the marginalized sections are included. Such
persons are those who are born into families who do not have the
capacity to send their children outside the State and the Country for
availing better educational facilities or expert and focused training
to appear for the competitive entrance examinations. Most likely
these are the persons who would remain within the State and offer
their services to those residing in the State, which has a dearth of
qualified medical practitioners.
5. We heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan,
learned senior counsel and Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate
General appearing for the appellants/State/University and Mr. P.B.
Suresh, Mr. Raghenth Basant, Mr. Prakash Deu Naik, learned senior
counsel and Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, learned counsel appearing
for the respective respondents/student-aspirants and Mr. S. Sriram,
learned senior counsel appearing for the impleader.
6. Two separate Rules containing almost similar definitions were under
challenge before the High Court. The first batch of Writ Petitions
challenged the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission
(Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 20171, the judgment in
which was passed on 29.08.2023. Closely following suit, the second
batch of Writ Petitions challenging the amendments brought into the
definition of ‘local candidates’ vide GOMS No.33 dated 19.07.2024
was also allowed on 05.09.2024. Both these judgments are in appeal
before us. In the meanwhile, by way of an interim order, there were
admissions made on the consent of the State as per the expanded
definition ordered by the High Court, subject to the final result of the
appeals before this Court.
7. We will first briefly notice the genesis and the history of the preferential
admissions to the professional courses in the undivided State of

1 hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules of 2017’
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 369

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

Andhra Pradesh and then after division, in the newly formed State
of Telangana. Article 371D as it stood before the division referred
to special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh
for providing equitable opportunities and facilities to the people
belonging to the State, both in the matters of public employment
and education, as enabled by a Presidential Order. After division,
the nominal heading was substituted to include State of Telangana,
which enabled the President by order to provide, having regard
to the requirements of each State, for equitable opportunities and
facilities for the people belonging to different parts of such States,
in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education,
in exercise of the powers conferred thereby. The Andhra Pradesh
Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admissions) Order, 19742
was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II dated
01.07.1974; which came into force on the same day. It divided the
State into three local areas of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and
Rayalaseema as applicable to the Osmania University, Andhra
Pradesh University and Sri Venkateswara University respectively.
8. The Presidential Order, originally provided that a local candidate in
relation to a local area would be such person who has studied in
an educational institution/institutions in such local area for a period
of not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the
academic year in which he appeared or first appeared in the relevant
qualifying examination. It was also provided that when a student has
resided within the local area in the four consecutive academic years
ending with the academic year in which he qualified and has not
studied in any educational institution, he would be entitled to seek
admission as a local candidate; which benefit is for students who
qualify through private study or the open school system. The Andhra
Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Second
Amendment Order, 1976 amplified the said definition to take in
students who had during the preceding years of qualification, studied
in different local areas. The students who studied in different local
areas, by the amendment, would have the benefit of being considered
in the local area where he has studied the maximum time within a
seven-year period. This benefit was also conferred on any resident in
different local areas in the preceding seven years who had qualified

2 hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Presidential Order’
370 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in the examinations held in one of the local areas but not studied
in any educational institution. The relevant qualifying examination
is specified in the Presidential Order as the examination, passing of
which is the minimum educational qualification for admission to the
course of study for which admission is sought; herein specifically
MBBS and BDS.
9. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 provided for
continuance of the benefit under Article 371D for ten years in the
newly formed States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The first
challenge was to the Rules of 2017 dated 05.07.2017. The local
areas in the said orders were also divided into three; being Andhra,
Rayalseema & Telangana, respectively associated with the three
Universities and the definition of local candidates was in consonance
with what was available in the Presidential Order. The Division Bench
of the High Court formulated eight questions which are noticed
hereunder, in seriatim: -
(i) Whether the Rules of 2017 are framed under Article
371D and the Presidential Order?
(ii) Whether the Rules of 2017 are framed under the
Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of
Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act, 19833?
(iii) Whether the Regulation Act of 1983 is framed under
Article 371D of the Constitution or under the Presidential
Order?
(iv) Whether the validity of the Order of 1974 was examined
by the Supreme Court in C.Surekha v. Union of India4 ?
(v) Whether the High Court could examine the validity of
the Rules of 2017?
(vi) & (vii) whether the petitioners fall under either of the
definitions of the Rules of 2017; Rule 3(III)(B) or 3(III)(C)?
(viii) whether Rule3(III)B of the Rules of 2017 is to be
struck down or read down?

3 Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Admission Act of 1983’
4 (1988) 4 SCC 526
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 371

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

10. Insofar as the first question is concerned, looking at the notification
dated 05.07.2017 and the reference to the Admission Act of 1983,
it was found that the Rules of 2017 was not one framed invoking
the powers conferred under the Presidential Order issued under
Article 371D.
11. On the basis of the recitals in the notification, the second question
was answered in the affirmative, finding the Rules of 2017 to be
made under the Admission Act of 1983. The Admission Act of 1983,
answering the third question, was also found to be not enacted either
under Article 371D or the Presidential Order.
12. It was found that the source of power to enact the Admission Act of
1983 and bring out the Rules of 2017 were perceived to be under
Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. The Admission Act of
1983 did not trace the source to either Article 371D or the Presidential
Order, in which event, neither was that Act enacted, nor the Rules of
2017 said to have been brought out, under the Presidential Order.
We are unable to accede to the above reasoning for more than one
reason.
13. It is not in dispute that the Presidential Order brought out under Article
371D of the Constitution enabled the State to provide for equitable
opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the different
parts of the State inter alia in the matter of education. A reading of
the Admission Act of 1983, specifically Section 3 is relevant in this
context, which is as under: -
3. (1) Subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf,
admission into educational institutions shall be made
either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying
examination or on the basis of the ranking assigned in the
entrance test conducted by such authority and in such
manner as may be prescribed;
(1A) [XXX]
[Provided that admission into Agriculture, Dental,
Engineering, Medical, Pharmacy and Veterinary Colleges
shall be made on the basis of ranking assigned by
giving weightage to the marks secured in the relevant
group subjects namely, Biology, Physics, Chemistry or
Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, as the case may be,
372 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in the Intermediate Public Examination or equivalent
examination and weightage to the marks secured in the
common entrance test as may be prescribed.]
(2) The admission into educational institutions under sub-
section (1) shall be subject to such rules as may be made
by the Government in regard to reservation of seats to
the members belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Backward Classes and other categories of
students as may be notified by the Government in this
behalf and the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions
(Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-sections (1) and (2),
it shall be lawful for the Government, to admit students
belonging to other States on reciprocal basis and the
nominees of the Government of India, into Medical and
Engineering Colleges in accordance with such rules as
may be prescribed:
Provided that admission of students into the Regional
Engineering College, Warangal to the extent of one-half
of the total number of seats shall be in accordance with
the guidelines issued by the Government of India, from
time to time.
(underlining by us for emphasis)

14. The provision emphasised above specifically enable rules to be
brought out not only with respect to reservation of seats to the
members belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Backward Classes, but also other categories of students, as may
be notified by the Government in this behalf and the Presidential
Order has been specifically referred to in the above Act, which went
unnoticed by the Division Bench.
15. A Constitution Bench decision of Seven Learned Judges of this
Court in Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon5 held, following yet another
Constitution Bench of Five Learned Judges in Harakchand

5 (1971) 2 SCC 779
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 373

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India6, that the power to legislate is
given to the appropriate legislatures by Article 246 of the Constitution.
It was declared that ‘The entries in the three lists are only legislative
heads or fields of legislation; they demarcate the area over which
the appropriate legislatures can operate’ (sic).
16. Usefull reference can be made to yet another decision of a Constitution
Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries
Ltd.7, from which we make the following extract to the extent it is
relevant for this case, since the issue regarding the residuary powers
vested in the Parliament, which was the subject matter of the cited
decision, does not arise in the present case. The relevant part of
paragraph No.31 reads as under: -
31. Article 245 of the Constitution is the fountain
source of legislative power. It provides — subject to
the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make
laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and
the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole
or any part of the State. The legislative field between
Parliament and the legislature of any State is divided by
Article 246 of the Constitution. Parliament has exclusive
power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule, called the
“Union List”. Subject to the said power of Parliament,
the legislature of any State has power to make laws with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III, called
the “Concurrent List”. Subject to the abovesaid two, the
legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws
with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II,
called the “State List”.
(bold font for emphasis)

17. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. National Thermal Power Corporation
Limited 8, the perceived conflict between Entries 53 and 54 of List II
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution was considered. Entry 53

6 (1969) 2 SCC 166
7 (2004) 10 SCC 201
8 (2002) 5 SCC 203
374 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

provided for tax on consumption of electricity while Entry 54 provided
for tax on sale of goods. The conflict was argued, especially on the
basis of the findings of this Court in Indian Aluminium Co. v. State
of Kerala9 that electricity is goods since supply and consumption
take place without any hiatus bringing it within the definition of a
sale. Holding that even when there is perceived conflict between
two entries, an effort should be made to harmonise it, it was found
that several entries in the three lists of the Seventh Schedule
are legislative heads or fields of legislation and not the source of
legislative empowerment. “Competence to legislate has to be traced
to the Constitution. The division of powers between Parliament and
the State Legislatures to legislate by reference to territorial limits is
defined by Article 245”(sic). Harmonising Entries 53 and 54, it was
held that tax could be levied on sale of electricity under Entry 54
and even if there is no sale by the manufacturer, its consumption
by the manufacturer itself could be taxed under Entry 53; both by
a single piece of legislation. It was held that a legislation could fall
within the scope of more than one Entry.
18. What can be clearly perceived from the afore cited decisions is
that the source of power to legislate has to be traced to Article 245
read with 246, while the entries in the three lists under the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution are fields of legislation, demarcated as
exclusively available to the Union, the State and concurrently; with
the Parliament having overriding powers in matters enumerated as
concurrent. When enacting a legislation, it is also permissible that
the Parliament or the State Legislature may choose to occupy the
various fields under the three lists but restricting to such demarcation
of powers delineated under Article 246.
19. Importing the above dictum to the subject issue, the States’ power to
legislate in the field of education as covered under Entry 25 of LIST III
has all the same to be traced to Articles 245 & 246, especially when
there is no Union legislation on the subject/field. The power enabled
under the Presidential Order to make special provisions for equitable
opportunities and facilities in the matter of education as conferred
under Article 371D; being education, is covered under Entry 25, and
has also to be traced to Articles 245 & 246. The Act of 1983, brought

9 (1996) 7 SCC 637
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 375

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

out thus, consequentially confer the power on the State to bring out
the rules in furtherance and in implementation of the Presidential
Order. The Rules of 2017, hence, is sourced to the power conferred
under the Presidential Order, at least, in so far as it determines the
local areas and bring out a definition of local candidates who are
enabled the privilege of admission to medical colleges by virtue of
their status as a local candidate as per the definition.
20. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers
Association and Others v. Union of India and Others10, overruled
an earlier decision of a Three Judge Bench which found the
reservation given to in-service candidates for admission to post-
graduate courses in medicine, unconstitutional. It was held that Entry
66 in List I has a very limited scope insofar as the power conferred
being coordination and determination of standards which alone is in
the exclusive domain of the Union. However, conduct of examination,
admission of students, prescription of fee and reservation would be
a power conferred on the State under Entry 25 of List III. The Rules
of 2017 is one authorised by the statute, which in turn traces the
source of its power to the Constitution and adopts the definition as
available in the Presidential Order.
21. Insofar as the judgment in C. Surekha (supra) the decision in
P.Sambamurthy v. State of A.P.11 was noticed, wherein it was held
that Article 371D does not militate against the basic structure of the
Constitution, except sub-article (5) of Article 371D; which led to denial
of the benefit of judicial review. The other question with respect to
reservation of 15% seats to the All-India Entrance Examination was
kept open. We find ourselves to be in full agreement with only this
finding of the High Court in the impugned judgment.
22. Now, we come to the question of the purported reading down carried
out by the Division Bench of the High Court. Having found that C.
Surekha (supra) did not interpret the Presidential Order of 1974, the
impugned judgment looked first at whether the petitioners fall under
the definition clauses at Clause 3 III (B) or (C). After extracting the
definitions as available in the Presidential Order and the Rules of
2017; which are identical, it was found that none of the petitioners

10 (2021) 6 SCC 568
11 (1987) 1 SCC 362
376 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

fall under the said definitions. The facts varied from case to case, but
there were even students who studied from the first to tenth standard
within the local area of the State of Telangana, under the Rules of
2017, but moved away for the secondary and higher secondary
studies. The reasons were multifarious and included varied situations
of life, including transfer of parents, better educational opportunities
and so on and so forth. The categoric finding was that none of the
petitioners fall under the two definitions of ‘study’ or ‘residence’; which
is also just prior to the higher secondary qualifying examination, the
appearance in which had to be undertaken in the State of Telangana.
23. Having found so, the Court went to the further question as to
whether the rule defining a local candidate is arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the decisions
in Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore12 and
Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi & Ors.13 as also decisions
of various High Courts, it was found to be violative of the mandate
contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. Relying on the trite principle
that when a harmonious construction is possible, no provision of
a statute or legislation should be struck down, the Division Bench
thus expanded the definition to include any student who produced
his residence certificate issued by a competent authority of the
Government of Telangana. At the outset, we have to state that
without a definition of what constitutes residence or at least without
reference to a statute or rule prescribing the issuance of a residence
certificate, the directions issued by the High Court would only result
in an anomalous situation, making the reservation unworkable and
open to a series of litigation.
24. Yet again, as has been argued by the State and the University, similar
provisions have been upheld by this Court in a number of decisions
over very many years. D.P.Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat and
Ors.14 upheld the levy of capitation fee on those students residing
outside Madhya Bharat. The object of the classification, found to
be justified, was the State’s desire to help at least to some extent
the students who are its residents, encouraging education of the

12 (1999) 8 SCC 139
13 (1989) 3 SCC 112
14 (1955) 1 SCC 58
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 377

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

indigenous people, especially when the State spends money for
the upkeep and running of the educational institutions; therein a
medical college. The aforesaid decision was followed in Kumari
N.Vasundara v. State of Mysore & Anr.15 which prescribed conditions
of residence for ten years in the State of Mysore, at any time prior
to the date of application for the purpose of admission. Therein
also an argument was raised that, candidates whose parents, out
of necessity or by compelling reasons of transfers, while remaining
out of the Mysore State, cannot afford to arrange for the residence
of their children inside the State. The argument was repelled by this
Court on two grounds. It was held that mere likelihood of hardship
cannot result in the striking down of a rule and in any event, hardship
is likely to arise in the working of almost any rule, especially when
applied to a selection of a limited number of candidates, which alone
cannot render the rule unconstitutional. It was clearly held that, for
relief against such hardship and reducing the wide gap between
the number of available seats and the number of aspirants, the
grievance would have to be addressed elsewhere; clearly indicating
the policy formulation by the government/legislature. The exclusive
domain for policy formulation was not liable to be interfered with,
unless validly challenged on gross discrimination, clear arbitrariness,
patent illegality, perversity or unconstitutionality.
25. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India16, considered the question whether
admission to institutions of higher learning situated in a State can be
confined to those having their domicile within their State or who are
residents within the State for a specific number of years, irrespective
of merit and whether this would be consistent with the constitutional
values. Referring to the earlier decisions of this Court, it was held
that at least in the scheme of admission to medical colleges, there
can be a departure from the principle of selection based on merit
to bring about real equality of opportunity between those who are
unequal. It was famously observed that ‘equality must not remain
mere idle incantation, but it must become a living reality for the large
masses of people’ (sic). Such departure was held to be justified on
two considerations; one the State interest and the other a region’s
claim of backwardness.

15 (1971) 2 SCC 22
16 1984 AIR 1420
378 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

26. Referring to D.P.Joshi (supra), it was found that therein the capitation
fee for persons belonging to outside Madhya Bharat was justified on
the assumption that those who are bona fide residents of Madhya
Bharat would settle down and serve the needs of the people in the
State, after they qualify; though, there was nothing observed in the
judgment as to whether there was any such justification pleaded.
It was held that despite intra-state discrimination between persons
resident in different districts and regions of a State was frowned upon
by this Court, institutional reservation effected through university-
wise distribution was upheld. Referring also to D.P.Joshi (supra)
and Kumari N. Vasundara (supra); while unreservedly condemning
wholesale reservation on the basis of domicile or residential
requirement, 70% reservation was prescribed as an outer limit with
30% being made available on an All-India basis. The percentage
was subsequently increased to 85% in the case of Dinesh Kumar
(Dr.) v. Motilal Nehru College17, with the prescription of an entrance
examination on an all-India basis for the remaining 15% seats.
27. Anand Madaan v. State of Haryana18, provided for a reservation
to those who are residents or domiciled in the State of Haryana
with a further condition of having studied in the 10th, 10+1 and 10+2
classes as a regular candidate in recognised institutions in Haryana.
An exception was carved out insofar as employees of the State
Government/All India services borne in the Haryana cadre, employees
of statutory bodies or Corporations established under an Act of the
State of Haryana and the children/wards of the employees of Indian
Defence Services and Paramilitary services belonging to the Haryana
State. This Court specifically referred to Meenakshi Malik13 which
was a lone case where a student’s parents in Government service
were posted outside the country in the last two years of education,
which was otherwise commenced and continued in Delhi, which was
held to be condonable. Anand Madaan18 found, that was a singular
grievance which similar contention was not available to any of the
petitioners and upheld the rule in the State of Haryana.
28. We have to immediately notice that the learned Advocate General
for the State of Telangana who appeared in the case has assured

17 (1986) 3 SCC 727
18 (1995) 2 SCC 135
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 379

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

us that there would be mitigation insofar as such candidates; which
we will refer to a little later.
29. Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam and Others19 was another case
in which reservation was made for local candidates who studied all
the classes from Class 8 to 12 in the State of Assam, who have also
passed the qualifying examination or its equivalent from the institutes
situated in the State of Assam. Relying on the cited precedents, this
Court held that the petitioners could not place any relevant data
showing that there were no coaching facilities available in Assam
and when some students can afford to obtain coaching in other
States, they stand on a different footing, belonging to an affluent
class who cannot be adjusted in the State quota, especially when
they can seek admission in the All India quota, thus, making the
Rule not totally exclusionary.
30. In the wake of the binding precedents, holding the field for three
score and ten years; a lifetime, we are unable to accede to the
claim of the students who did not fall under the definition that the
rule is exclusionary, arbitrary and constitutionally invalid. We cannot
but notice that in Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. (supra), the
rule providing reservation to those local students, qualifying from
educational institutions situated within the municipal limits were
merely expanded to include the Ahmedabad Urban Development Area
(AUDA). The Rule was justified in the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the Ahmedabad Municipality, on the ground that the Medical College
in question was established to cater to the needs of the students
residing in Ahmedabad city and hence only those students who
qualified from schools or colleges within the Ahmedabad Municipality
were entitled to be treated as local students. The question posed
by this Court was whether those who are residents of Ahmedabad
city, who also contribute to the revenue of the Municipality, could
be denied the status of local students, merely for reason that they
study in schools outside the Municipality limits, but within the AUDA.
The rule was held to include even the students of the institutions in
the AUDA on the ground that otherwise it creates a differentia within
the class of students of Ahmedabad on the basis of their acquiring
qualifications from schools within the Municipal limit or within the

19 2018 INSC 718
380 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

limits of AUDA, which would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
There is no such unintelligible differentia arising in this case.
31. For all the reasons noticed above, we are unable to uphold the
impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 of the High Court of Telangana.
32. Now, we come to the challenge against the amended Rules of 2023. As
has been argued by the State and the University, the Reorganisation
Act of Andhra Pradesh permitted continuance of the benefit under
Article 371D in the newly formed States for a period of ten years
and there was a requirement for a new legislation, after the expiry
of that period. This prompted the State to amend the rule by G.O
(MS) No.33 dated 19.07.2024, incorporating a fresh Rule 3 in the
Rules of 2017. The said amendment provided for the ‘Competent
Authority Quota’ in the State of Telangana, which on incorporation
in the Rules of 2017 traces its power to legislate, to the Regulation
Act of 1983, which we already found has been brought out under
Entry 25 of List III, Seventh Schedule read with Article 371D and
the Presidential Order of 1974 as also Articles 245 & 246. The new
rule provided for reservation to an extent of 85% to those candidates
who have either (i) studied in the educational institutions in the local
area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years
ending with the academic year in which he qualified for admission or
(ii) where during the whole or any part of the four consecutive years
ending with the academic year in which he qualified for admission,
resided in the local area but without studying in any educational
institutions, which candidate also should have appeared for the
qualifying examination in the State of Telangana. The Division Bench,
considering the amended rule, noticed the decision in Pradeep
Jain16, Anand Madaan18 and Rajdeep Ghosh19 having laid down
that the requirement of residence/domicile for admission to MBBS/
BDS course is permissible, but without anything more proceeded
to consider whether the amended rule has to be struck down or
read down. After looking at the principle of reading down, again
Meenakshi Malik13 and the earlier judgment dated 29.08.2023 were
noticed to find that the amended rule will have to be read down to
mean those petitioners having permanent residence or domicile in
the State of Telangana, who will have to be considered as a local
candidate. At this point, it was pointed out from the Bar that there
are no guidelines/rules framed by the State Government to ascertain
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 381

The State of Telangana & Ors. Etc. v.
Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & Ors. Etc.

the domicile/permanent residence within the State of Telangana. The
State Government was directed to frame guidelines to determine
such domicile/residence and directed to consider writ petitioners as
per the newly framed guidelines/rules.
33. We have already held that the pre-amended rule defining a local
candidate was perfectly in order, which reasoning applies squarely
to the amended rule also. There was no warrant for a reading down
when the definition is clear, in consonance with the Presidential Order
and similar rules having been upheld by this Court as coming out from
the binding precedents. We find no reason to take a different view
with respect to the amended rule also; 15% having been conceded
to the All-India quota.
34. We also observe that the learned Advocate General has handed
over a further amendment proposed, incorporating a proviso to Rule
3 as follows: -
I. Provided that a candidate who studies outside Telangana
for any period during the requisite four consecutive
academic years ending with the academic year in which
he appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared in
the relevant qualifying examination will be eligible to be
considered if they fall under any of the below categories:
1. Children of employees of the Telangana State
Government who have served or are serving outside
Telangana corresponding to the candidate’s year/s
of study outside Telangana
2. Children of serving or retired employees belonging
to the Telangana cadre of All India Services (IAS/
IFS/IPS) who have served or are serving outside
Telangana corresponding to the candidate’s year/s
of study outside Telangana
3. Children of defence personnel/ex-servicemen/
Central Armed Police Force service who at the time
of joining service, have declared their hometown to
be in the State of Telangana and who have served
or are serving outside Telangana corresponding to
the candidate’s year/s of study outside Telangana
382 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. Children of employees of a Corporation/Agency/
Instrumentality under Government of Telangana,
liable to be transferred anywhere in India as per
the terms and conditions of his/her employment,
who have served or are serving outside Telangana
corresponding to the candidate’s year/s of study
outside Telangana
II. Subject to the candidate submitting Certificate of
employment from the competent authority for the
candidate’s father/mother’s service outside the State for
the period corresponding to the candidate’s year/s of study
outside Telangana.
35. The said proviso should allay and mitigate the grievances of those
who claim that they were taken out of the State by compulsion
of the movement of their parents outside the State by reason of
employment in Government/All-India Services/ Corporations or Public
Sector Undertakings constituted as an instrumentality of the State
of Telangana as also defence and paramilitary forces who trace
their nativity to the State, subject to the conditions thereunder. With
only the said reservation, we uphold the Rules of 2017 as it stood
amended in 2024. We were told that in the previous academic year
on concession made by the Government before this Court, students
who did not fall strictly under the definition were granted admission
to mitigate the grievance of the hardship alleged and argued. We
make it clear that the admissions so made shall not be disturbed.
36. The appeals of the State and the University are allowed, setting
aside both the impugned judgments in the Writ Petitions filed by the
students. The Writ Petitions and the SLP filed by the students before
this Court, as a consequence stand dismissed; however, with the
reservation insofar as candidates who are covered by the proviso
to Rule 3 as specified in paragraph 34 above. No order as to costs.
37. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Matters disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey