Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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