Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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