POCSO Act | Foundational Facts Establishing Offence Must Be Proved To Trigger Statutory Presumption Under Section 29: Calcutta High Court Expectation Of Higher Price In Future Auctions No Ground To Discard Highest Bid Above Reserve Price; Subsequent Sale Hit By Section 52 TP Act: Allahabad High Court AI May Well Serve As Training Wheels But Entrusting It With Pilot's Seat Would Be Both Imprudent And Dangerous: Bombay High Court Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 138 NI Act Can Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution If Complainant Fails To Serve Notice On Accused: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Section 348 BNSS Witness Recall Plea Is Interlocutory; Inherent Powers Cannot Provide Backdoor Entry Where Section 438(2) Revisional Bar Applies Absent Gross Injustice: Delhi High Court Limitation Period For Appeal Commences From Date Assessee Receives Copy Of ITAT Order, Not Date Of Pronouncement: Bombay High Court Under Section 254(3) Income Tax Act Section 82 CrPC | Failure To Attempt Service At Known Overseas Address Vitiates Proclamation; Setting Aside PO Declaration Does Not Invalidate Arrest Warrants Or Extradition: Delhi High Court Expenditure Incurred By Defaulting Party Cannot Be Equated With Benefit Received Under Section 64 Contract Act: Karnataka High Court Upholds Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Under Section 34 A&C Act Vendor Executing Agreement To Sell Pendente Lite Precluded From Compromising Appeal Prejudicially; Intending Purchasers Entitled To Impleadment Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala Rent Act | Examination Of Co-Landlord Spouse Sufficient To Prove Bona Fide Need Even If Spouse Intending To Occupy Doesn't Testify: High Court Personal Accident Coverage Under Motor Insurance Policy Does Not Extend To Borrower; Exonerates Insurer From Liability: Madras High Court Limitation To Challenge Void Sale Deed Runs From Discovery Of Fraud, Unilateral Material Alteration Vitiates Title: Orissa High Court Interim Status Quo Order Automatically Lapses Upon Dismissal Of Suit, Pendency Of First Appeal Does Not Entitle Injunction Under Order 39 CPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court District Caste Verification Committee Has No Jurisdiction Under Section 4C Karnataka SC/ST Act To Cancel Caste Certificate On Private Third-Party Complaint Absent Validation Request: Karnataka High Court Joint Title Presumes Equal Share Unless Exclusive Consideration Proved By Documented Evidence: Kerala High Court POCSO Act | Delay In Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witnesses Does Not Weaken Sterling Testimony Of Victim: Madras High Court Mandatory Affixation Of Welfare Fund Stamp On Vakalatnama Valid Under List III Entries 23 & 26, Not A Toll On Right To Practice: Telangana High Court Upholds Sections 12 & 12A Of Advocates Welfare Fund Act BSF Personnel Certified Medically Incapacitated Entitled To Disability Pension Despite 'Voluntary Retirement' Label Under Rule 48-A CCS Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court SARFAESI Auction Purchaser Takes Title Free From Subsequent Attachments, Claim Enquiry Confined Only To Property Rights: Kerala High Court Commercial Use, Late-Night Events In Areas Adjacent To Reserved Forest Prohibited To Protect Wildlife Under Forest Conservation Norms: Rajasthan High Court In Composite Negligence, Claimants Free To Recover Entire Compensation From Any Joint Tortfeasor Without Impleading Other Vehicle: Orissa High Court Regular Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction Under Section 190 CrPC To Take Cognizance Against Sitting Or Former Legislators; Special MP/MLA Court Alone Competent: Karnataka High Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Decreed On Fabricated Sale Agreement Bearing Sequential Stamp Papers From Decade-Old Mortgage; Section 340 CrPC Applicable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sole Testimony Of Child Victim Stands On Same Footing As Injured Witness, Defective Investigation No Ground To Discard Credible Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 6 POCSO Act, 376 IPC Once Trial Court Accepts Written Statement Without Objection, It Cannot Recall Order To Strike Off Defence Under Order 8 Rule 1: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Court Fee Refund Under Section 69 Or Section 69-A Of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act If Out-Of-Court Settlement Is Reached After Trial Commences: Madras High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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