Temporary Absence Due to Parental Transfer Does Not Break Continuity of Residence for Domicile Certificate Eligibility

The petitioner, an 18-year-old student born in Maharashtra, moved to Gujarat in 2008 due to her father's employment

She studied in Gujarat from 2011 to 2018 (Nursery to Std. IV). Her father was then transferred to Chennai for two years (2018–2020), after which the family returned to Gujarat

The petitioner completed Std. VII to XII in Ahmedabad, ending in March 2026

To apply for medical admissions (NEET), she sought a Domicile Certificate

Respondent No. 3 (Inspector of Police) rejected the application on March 20, 2026, stating the petitioner lacked the "continuous residence" of ten years in Gujarat required by government circulars

The court applied the principle that "domicile" signifies a residence of an indefinite nature rather than purely fleeting, as established in Craignish v. Craignish

It relied heavily on the precedent set in Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 17426/2018), which held that Rule 4(1-A) of the Amendment Rules, 2018, does not explicitly define domicile as a "minimum continuous stay of ten years," and such a condition cannot be introduced solely through administrative circulars to override the legal concept of domicile

The court further utilized the doctrine from Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra v. State of Gujarat and Aman Ramesh Panjiyar v. Mamlatdar Office, which holds that periods spent outside the state for education or due to parental relocation should not be excluded when computing the ten-year residency period

The court reasoned that the petitioner had spent 16 out of her 18 years in Gujarat

Following the ratio in Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari, the court observed that "domicile" is a legal relationship between an individual and a territory, and the requirement of "continuous" stay must be interpreted reasonably

The court found that the two-year gap (2018–2020) was an involuntary move necessitated by her father’s job transfer and did not indicate an intention to abandon her domicile in Gujarat

Since the petitioner returned to the State to complete her secondary education (Std. VII to XII), the "break" was deemed incidental.

The court held that administrative instructions (Circular No. PTR/1114-65F.II) cannot impose more stringent requirements than the Rules themselves, and a student who has spent the majority of her life and education in the State meets the criteria for domicile

It held that the petitioner is entitled to a Domicile Certificate as her stay in Gujarat was substantial and the interruption was non-volitional

The court directed the respondents to issue the Domicile Certificate to the petitioner within one week, and no later than July 30, 2026

The petition was allowed and Rule was made absolute