All Indians Share a Single 'Domicile of India'; No State or Provincial Domicile in Indian Law: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors., reaffirmed that the concept of regional or provincial domicile is foreign to Indian law. It held that all Indian citizens share a single domicile—the Domicile of India. The Court ruled that residence-based reservations in PG medical admissions are unconstitutional, emphasizing that domicile is relevant only where multiple legal systems exist within a country, which is not the case in India.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti cited Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984), clarifying that 'domicile' is often misused to mean 'permanent residence.' Justice Dhulia, authoring the judgment, referenced State v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame (1958) to reiterate that there is only one domicile in India, as per Article 5 of the Constitution.
The Court distinguished ‘domicile’ from ‘residence,’ stressing that Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on residence and that Article 16(3) allows only Parliament—not State legislatures—to impose residence requirements for State employment. Referring to Constituent Assembly Debates, the Court noted that the framers opposed residence-based discrimination in employment, ensuring uniformity across India.
The judgment concluded:
"We are all domiciled in the territory of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country grants us the right to reside, work, and seek education anywhere in India."