Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Overseas citizens of India (OCI) cardholders allowed to appear in NEET - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court held in the recent Judgement (Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. D.D 03/02/2023 ) that the impugned notification issued in 2021 causes harm to individuals like the first petitioner, who had planned their future based on the assurance of the sovereign State to provide education and other benefits through the OCI card. Renouncing their citizenship and seeking Indian citizenship would mean they would lose their entire educational career in India and would not get any special benefit in their country of birth

The petitioners are Overseas citizens of India (OCI) cardholders and students who want to become doctors by pursuing MBBS through the NEET selection process. They were preparing for the NEET-UG exams based on the rights given to them through notifications in 2005 and 2009, which extended parity with Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in the field of education, including eligibility for medical exams. However, the notification dated 04.03.2021 issued by the respondent No.1 restricted the admission of OCI cardholders only to seats reserved for NRIs or supernumerary seats, disentitling them from the admission process for Indian citizens.The petitioners claim that the notification violates the Doctrine of Non-Retrogression and the constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21, which are available to "any person," not just Indian citizens. They are aggrieved by the manner in which the right was taken away from them and seek to quash clause 4(ii), its proviso and Explanation (1) of the impugned notification dated 04.03.2021.

Supreme Court observed that the Doctrine of Progressive Realization of Rights cannot be used to support the petitioners' argument as the rights being considered here are only statutory rights for non-citizens.

Supreme Court also observed that the petitioners have spent over six years studying in India, and many have completed their entire education up to the stage of a qualifying examination for the Pre-Medical Test in India. Some petitioners are also foreign citizens who hold an OCI card, which indicates their continued connection to India and pursuit of education there. The right conferred to OCI cardholders through notifications dated 11.04.2005 and 05.01.2009 has been the basis for their choice of profession and preparation for it, and their entire education has been the same as that of Indian citizens.

Supreme Court held that explanation provided by the respondents regarding the vacancies in previous years is not enough to justify the removal of the right granted to OCI cardholders. The decision to issue the impugned notification was taken in the meeting of Secretaries on 19.07.2018 without any indication of the nature of the deliberation. The decision to take away the right of OCI cardholders, who have pursued their entire educational career in India, would not be justified as it does not have any relationship with the objective sought to be achieved. Petition Allowed.

Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.                                     

Latest Legal News