TRAI Issuing Directions To Enforce Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' Of Dispute, Does Not Usurp TDSAT's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Candidate Can Challenge Selection Process After Participating If Arbitrariness Is Writ Large Or Rules Changed Mid-Way: Supreme Court Selection Committee Cannot Superimpose Additional Cut-Off Marks Not Prescribed In Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Must Ordinarily Approach High Court First For Quashing FIRs, Article 32 Is For Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Club Multiple FIRs In Cyber Fraud Case, Says Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Constitute 'Same Transaction' Layman Borrowers Not Liable For Forgery If Even Bank's Legal Experts Failed To Detect Fabrication In Title Deeds: Allahabad High Court Kerala High Court Orders Travancore Devaswom Board To Digitise Sabarimala Asset Inventory, Says Current Records Resemble 'Betel Shop' Ledger Second Husband In Void Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry Death Under Section 80 BNS: Allahabad High Court Cohabitation Of Barely 3 Months Insufficient To Trigger Presumption Of Live-In Relationship For Maintenance: Bombay High Court SC/ST Act Case Filed By Suspended Head Constable To 'Wreck Vengeance' Against Investigating Officers Quashed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-Compliance With Order For Production Of Documents Under O.11 R.14 CPC Cannot Warrant Striking Off Defence: Calcutta High Court Omission To Put Dying Declaration To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Makes It Inadmissible, But Doesn't Demolish Entire Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Victim's Appeal Against Magistrate's Acquittal Order Lies Before Sessions Court Under Section 413 BNSS: Gujarat High Court 'Fraud And Justice Cannot Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Quashes 30-Year-Old Land Acquisition After Records Of Compensation Go Missing Electricity Authorities Cannot Determine Civil Liability For Energy Theft Under Section 135; Only Special Court Empowered: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Exploit Employees By Keeping Them On Part-Time Basis For Decades To Deny Old Pension Scheme: Punjab & Haryana HC

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